Rajasthan High Court – Jodhpur
Kalu Ram vs State (2025:Rj-Jd:23414) on 14 May, 2025
Author: Manoj Kumar Garg
Bench: Manoj Kumar Garg
[2025:RJ-JD:23414]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 451/2006
Kalu Ram S/o Narayan, aged about 58 years, Resident of Bhagta
Ki Jhopadiya, Police Station - Pander, District Bhilwara,
Rajasthan.
(Lodged in Sub-Jail, Bhilwara, in the process of transfer to
Central Jail, Ajmer)
----Petitioner
Versus
State of Rajasthan, through PP
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Pravin Vyas
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Deepak Choudhary, GA-cum-AAG
Mr. K.S. Kumpawat, AAAG
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR GARG
Order
14/05/2025
1. By way of filing the instant criminal revision petition, a challenge
has been made to the order dated 26.05.2006 passed by learned
Additional Sessions Judge No.2, Bhilwara Camp Shahpura, District
Bhilwara, in Criminal Appeal No.57/2005 whereby the learned appellate
Court dismissed the appeal filed against the judgment of conviction
dated 30.06.2003 passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial
Magistrate, Shahpura, Dist. Bhilwara, in Criminal Case No.169/1992 by
which the learned trial Judge convicted and sentenced the petitioner as
under:-
Offence Sentence Fine Sentence in
default of fine
Section 279 IPC 1 month's S.I. Rs.100/- 2 days' S.I.
Section 337 IPC 1 month's S.I. Rs.200/- 3 days' S.I.
Section 338 IPC 3 months' S.I. Rs.500/- 5 days' S.I.
Section 304-A IPC 1 year's S.I. Rs.500/- 5 days' S.I.
Sec.3/181 of M.V. ---- Rs.200/- 2 days' S.I.
Act
(Downloaded on 06/06/2025 at 09:48:56 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:23414] (2 of 4) [CRLR-451/2006]
2. All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently and the period
spent in judicial custody shall be adjusted in the original imprisonment.
3. The gist of the prosecution story is that on 05.05.1992,
complainant Kailash Kumar submitted a written report at Police Station
Pander, District Bhilwara to the effect that in connection with the
marriage of his cousin Rama, he had hired a tractor belonging to the
present petitioner, being registered as RSE-7595, for use in the
marriage procession (Baraat). The groom along with other family
members were sitting in the tractor which was being driven by the
present petitioner in a very rash and negligent manner, as a result of
which the trolley overturned near Amli bus stand. As a result of the said
accident, one Ladu sustained grievous injuries and later succumbed
during the course of treatment. Upon the aforesaid information, an FIR
was registered and after usual investigation, charge-sheet came to be
submitted against the petitioner in the Court concerned.
4. The Learned Magistrate framed charge against the petitioner for
offences under Sections 279, 337, 338 & 304-A of IPC & 3/181 of M.V.
Act and upon denial of guilt by the accused, commenced the trial.
During the course of trial, as many as 12 witnesses were examined and
some documents were exhibited. Thereafter, an explanation was sought
from the accused-petitioner under Section 313 Cr.P.C. for which he
denied the same. After hearing the learned counsel for the accused
petitioner and meticulous appreciation of the evidence, learned Trial
Judge convicted the accused for offence under Sections 279, 337, 338 &
304A of IPC & 3/181 of M.V. Act vide judgment dated 30.06.2003 and
sentenced him as mentioned above. Aggrieved by the judgment of
conviction, he preferred an appeal before the Additional Sessions Judge
which was dismissed vide judgment dated 26.05.2006. Both these
(Downloaded on 06/06/2025 at 09:48:56 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:23414] (3 of 4) [CRLR-451/2006]
judgments are under assail before this Court in the instant revision
petition.
5. Learned Counsel Mr. Pravin Vyas, representing the petitioner, at
the outset submits that he does not dispute the finding of guilt and the
judgment of conviction passed by the learned trial court and upheld by
the learned appellate court, but at the same time, he implores that the
incident took place in the year 1992. He had remained in jail for 26
days after passing of the judgment by the appellate court. No other
case has been reported against him. He hails from a very poor family
and belongs to the weaker section of the society. He is facing trial since
the year 1992 and he has languished in jail for some time, therefore, a
lenient view may be taken in reducing his sentence.
6. Learned Additional Advocate General though opposed the
submissions made on behalf of the petitioner but does not refute the
fact that the petitioner has remained behind the bars for 26 days and
except the present one no other case has been registered against him.
7. Since the revision petition against conviction is not pressed and
after perusing the material, nothing is noticed which requires
interference in the finding of guilt reached by learned trial court, this
court does not wish to interfere in the judgment of conviction.
Accordingly, the judgment of conviction is maintained.
8. As far as the question of sentence is concerned, the petitioner
remained in jail for some time and he is facing the rigor for last 33
years. Thus, in the light of the judgments passed by the Hon’ble
Supreme Court in the cases of Haripada Das Vs. State of West
Bangal reported in (1998) 9 SCC 678 and Alister Anthony Pareira
vs. State of Maharashtra reported in 2012 2 SCC 648 and
considering the circumstances of the case, age of the petitioner, his
status in the society and the fact that the case is pending since a pretty
(Downloaded on 06/06/2025 at 09:48:56 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:23414] (4 of 4) [CRLR-451/2006]
long time for which the petitioner has suffered incarceration for some
days and the maximum sentence imposed upon him is of 1 year as well
as the fact that he faced financial hardship and had to go through
mental agony, this court deems it appropriate to reduce the sentence to
the term of imprisonment that the petitioner has already undergone till
date.
9. Accordingly, the judgment of conviction dated 26.05.2006 passed
by learned Additional Sessions Judge No.2, Bhilwara Camp Shahpura,
District Bhilwara, in Criminal Appeal No.57/2005 & the judgment dated
30.06.2003 passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate,
Shahpura, Dist. Bhilwara, in Criminal Case No.169/1992 is affirmed but
the quantum of sentence awarded by the learned Trial Court is modified
to the extent that the sentence he has undergone till date would be
sufficient and justifiable to serve the interest of justice. The fine amount
imposed by the trial Court is hereby maintained. Two months’ time is
granted to deposit the fine amount before the trial Court. In default of
payment of fine, the petitioner shall undergo one month S.I. The
petitioner is on bail. He need not surrender. His bail bonds are
cancelled.
10. The revision petition is allowed in part.
11. Pending applications, if any, are disposed of.
12. Record of the Courts below be sent back.
(MANOJ KUMAR GARG),J
18-GKaviya/-
(Downloaded on 06/06/2025 at 09:48:56 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)