Rajasthan High Court – Jodhpur
Major Singh vs State (2025:Rj-Jd:32519) on 23 July, 2025
Author: Manoj Kumar Garg
Bench: Manoj Kumar Garg
[2025:RJ-JD:32519]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 707/2004
Major Singh S/o Sh. Gurdeep Singh, Aged About 45 years,
Resident of Malout, Tehsil- Malout, District Mukatsar (Punjab).
----Petitioner
Versus
State of Rajasthan, through Public Prosecutor.
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Ms. Anamika Baghmar
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Deepak Choudhary, GA-cum-AAG
Mr. K.S. Kumpawat, AAAG
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR GARG
Order
23/07/2025
1. By way of filing the instant criminal revision petition, a
challenge has been made to the order dated 29.09.2004 passed by
learned Additional Sessions Judge, Nohar, District Hanumangarh, in
Criminal Appeal No.10/2001 whereby the learned appellate Court
dismissed the appeal filed against the judgment of conviction dated
06.02.2001 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First class,
Rawatsar, District Hanumangarh, in Criminal Case No.242/1996 by
which the learned trial Judge convicted and sentenced the petitioner
as under:-
Offence Sentence Fine Sentence in
default of fine
Section 279 IPC 2 months' S.I. Rs.200/- 7 days' S.I.
Section 337 IPC 2 months' S.I. Rs.200/- 7 days' S.I..
Section 338 IPC 6 months' S.I. Rs.500/- 1 month's S.I.
Section 304A IPC 1 years' S.I. Rs.500/- 3 months' 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 24/07/2025 at 09:51:36 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:32519] (2 of 4) [CRLR-707/2004]
3. The gist of the prosecution story is that on 22.02.1991,
complainant Khubram gave a Parcha Bayan to the effect that on
22.02.1991, while he was going to Rawatsar Bus Stand along with his
family members in a Jeep, it was hit by a truck bearing registration
No.RNC-5412 which was being driven by the present petitioner in a very
rash and negligent manner. As a result of the collision, three persons
succumbed to injuries. 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 and upon
denial of guilt by the accused, commenced the trial. During the
course of trial, as many as 10 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 and then, 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 vide judgment dated 06.02.2001 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 29.09.2004. Both
these judgments are under assail before this Court in the instant
revision petition.
5. Learned Counsel Ms. Anamika Baghmar, 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
(Downloaded on 24/07/2025 at 09:51:36 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:32519] (3 of 4) [CRLR-707/2004]
time, he implores that the incident took place in the year 1991. He
had remained in jail for about one month 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 was 27 years old at the time of
incident, now he is aged about 51 years and is facing trial since the
year 1991 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 about one
month 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 34
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 incarceration
for some days and the maximum sentence imposed upon him is of
(Downloaded on 24/07/2025 at 09:51:36 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:32519] (4 of 4) [CRLR-707/2004]
one years 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 29.09.2004
passed by learned Additonal Sessions Judge, Nohar, District
Hanumangarh in Criminal Appeal No.10/2001 & the judgment dated
06.02.2001 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class,
Rawatsar, District Hanumangarh in Criminal Case No.242/1996 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
2-GKaviya/-
(Downloaded on 24/07/2025 at 09:51:36 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
[ad_1]
Source link