Rajasthan High Court – Jodhpur
Mahaveer Prasad vs State (2025:Rj-Jd:13891) on 12 March, 2025
Author: Manoj Kumar Garg
Bench: Manoj Kumar Garg
[2025:RJ-JD:13891]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 139/2007
Mahaveer Prasad S/o Ladulal, Age 42 years, B/c Dholi, R/o
Agucha, P.S. Gulabpura, District Bhilwara.
----Petitioner
Versus
State of Rajasthan
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Amit Kumar Dadhich
Mr. Manish Dadhich
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Pawan Kumar Bhati, PP
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR GARG
Order
12/03/2025
1. By way of filing the instant criminal revision petition, a
challenge has been made to the order dated 17.02.2007 passed
by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge Gulabpura, Bhilwara (for
short, “the appellate Court”) in Criminal Appeal No.16/2004 while
rejecting the appeal filed against the judgment of conviction dated
27.03.2004 passed by the learned Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate
Gulabpura, Bhilwara in Criminal Case No.100/1999 by which the
learned trial Judge has convicted & sentenced the petitioner as
under:-
Offence Sentence Fine & default sentence Sec. 279 IPC 6 months' SI Rs.200/- and in default of payment of fine, one month's S.I. Sec. 337 IPC 6 months' SI Rs.200/- and in default of payment of fine, one month's S.I. Sec. 338 IPC 1 Year's SI Rs.300/- and in default of payment of fine, one month's S.I. (Downloaded on 12/03/2025 at 09:54:06 PM) [2025:RJ-JD:13891] (2 of 5) [CRLR-139/2007] Sec. 304-A IPC 1 Years' RI Rs.300/- 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.
3. The gist of the prosecution story is that complainant Madan
Gopal gave a report to the concerned Police Station to the effect
that on 10.03.1999 at about 4:00 P.M. Barat of son of
Radheyshyam went in a bus bearing registration No.RJ-06-P-0903,
which was driven by petitioner rashly and negligently. As a result
of this accident, some passengers were injured and out of which
one passenger succumbed to injuries. On this report, the FIR
No.60/1999 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, 338 & 304-A of IPC and
upon denial of guilt by the accused, commenced the trial. During
the course of trial, as many as nineteen 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 and exhibited six documents in
defence. After hearing the learned counsel for the accused
petitioner and meticulous appreciation of the evidence, learned
Trial Judge has convicted the accused for offence under Sections
279, 337, 338 & 304-A of IPC vide judgment dated 27.03.2004
and sentenced him. Aggrieved by the judgment of conviction, he
preferred an appeal before the Additional Sessions Judge
(Downloaded on 12/03/2025 at 09:54:06 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:13891] (3 of 5) [CRLR-139/2007]
Gulabpura, Bhilwara, which was dismissed vide judgment dated
17.02.2007. Both these judgments are under assail before this
Court in the instant revision petition.
5. Learned counsel Mr. Dadhich, 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 1999. He had
remained in jail for seven 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
1999 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 seven 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
(Downloaded on 12/03/2025 at 09:54:06 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:13891] (4 of 5) [CRLR-139/2007]
the rigor for last 26 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 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 27.03.2004
passed by the learned Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate Gulabpur,
Bhilwara, in Criminal Case No.100/1999 and the judgment dated
17.02.2007 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge
Gulabpura, Bhilwara, in Criminal Appeal No.16/2004 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 maintained. Two months’ time is
granted to deposit the fine before the trial court. In default of
payment of fine, the petitioner shall undergo one month’s simple
imprisonment. The fine amount, if any, already deposited by the
petitioner shall be adjusted. The petitioner is on bail. He need not
to surrender. His bail bonds are cancelled.
(Downloaded on 12/03/2025 at 09:54:06 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:13891] (5 of 5) [CRLR-139/2007]
10. The revision petition is allowed in part.
11. Pending applications, if any, are disposed of.
12. Record of the Courts below, if received, be sent back
forthwith.
(MANOJ KUMAR GARG),J
25-Ishan/-
(Downloaded on 12/03/2025 at 09:54:06 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)