[ad_1]
Rajasthan High Court – Jodhpur
Karamjeet Singh vs State (2025:Rj-Jd:31324) on 16 July, 2025
Author: Manoj Kumar Garg
Bench: Manoj Kumar Garg
[2025:RJ-JD:31324]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 452/2008
Karamjeet Singh S/o Shri Nirmal Singh, by caste Jat Sikh, R/o
Village Senawala, Police Station Nakodar, District Jalandhar
(Punjab)
----Petitioner
Versus
State of Rajasthan
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Jitendra Singh
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vikram Singh Rajpurohit, PP
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR GARG
Order
16/07/2025
1. By way of filing the instant criminal revision petition, a
challenge has been made to the order dated 30.04.2008 passed
by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge Abu Road, Sirohi (for short,
“the appellate Court”) in Criminal Appeal No.16/2006 while
rejecting the appeal filed against the judgment of conviction dated
28.08.2006 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate (First Class)
Pindwara (Sirohi), in Regular Criminal Case No.421/1995 by which
the learned trial Judge has convicted & sentenced the petitioner as
under:-
Offence Sentence Fine & default sentence Sec. 279 & 337 3 months' SI Rs.300/- and in default of IPC in each payment of fine, fifteen days' offence S.I. in each offence Sec. 304-A IPC 1 year's SI Rs.1,000/- and in default of payment of fine, one month's S.I.
2. All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently and the
period spent in judicial custody shall be adjusted in the original
imprisonment.
(Downloaded on 22/07/2025 at 09:29:10 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:31324] (2 of 4) [CRLR-452/2008]
3. The gist of the prosecution story is that on 25.09.1995
complainant Girdharilal Saini submitted a written report at
concerned Police Station, to the effect that he alongwith his driver
Raghunath Singh went to Junagarh after loading the articles in
their truck. In the way, a truck bearing registration No.PBN-9905
driven by petitioner rashly and negligently hit their truck. Due to
which complainant sustained injuries and driver Raghunath Singh
succumbed to injuries. On this report, the FIR was lodged at
concerned Police Station, against the petitioner. 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 & 304-A of IPC and upon
denial of guilt by the accused, commenced the trial. During the
course of trial, as many as nine witnesses were examined and
certain 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 has convicted and sentenced the
accused for offence under Sections 279, 337 & 304-A of IPC vide
judgment dated 28.08.2006. Aggrieved by the judgment of
conviction, he preferred an appeal before the Addl. Sessions Judge
Abu Road, which was dismissed vide judgment dated 30.04.2008.
Both these judgments are under assail before this Court in the
instant revision petition.
5. Learned counsel Mr. Jitendra Singh, representing the
petitioner, at the outset submits that he does not dispute the
(Downloaded on 22/07/2025 at 09:29:10 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:31324] (3 of 4) [CRLR-452/2008]
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 1995. He had remained in jail for about fifteen 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 has been facing
trial since the year 1995 and he has languished in jail for some
time, therefore, a lenient view may be taken in reducing his
sentence.
6. Learned Public Prosecutor 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 about fifteen 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 has been facing
the rigor for last 30 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
(Downloaded on 22/07/2025 at 09:29:10 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:31324] (4 of 4) [CRLR-452/2008]
of the case, age of the petitioner, his status in the society and the
fact that the case is pending since a pretty long time for which the
petitioner has suffered some time incarceration and the maximum
sentence imposed upon him is of one 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 28.08.2006
passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate (First Class) Pindwara
(Sirohi) in Regular Criminal Case No.421/1995 and the judgment
dated 30.04.2008 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge Abu
Road, Sirohi in Criminal Appeal No.16/2006 are 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 is hereby waived, if not already
deposited. The petitioner is on bail. He need not to 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
20-Ishan/-
(Downloaded on 22/07/2025 at 09:29:10 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
[ad_2]
Source link