Rajasthan High Court – Jodhpur
Mangal Singh vs State (2025:Rj-Jd:17113) on 2 April, 2025
Author: Manoj Kumar Garg
Bench: Manoj Kumar Garg
[2025:RJ-JD:17113]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 1156/2006
Mangal Singh S/o Nan Singh, R/o Punawali, P.S. Sayara, Distt.
Udaipur (Rajasthan)
[Lodged in Central Jail, Udaipur]
----Petitioner
Versus
The State of Rajasthan
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Anuj Sahlot with
Mr. Arun Dadhich
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Narendra Gehlot, PP with
Mr. Om Prakash Choudhary
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR GARG
Judgment
02/04/2025
1. By way of filing the instant criminal revision petition, a
challenge has been made to the order dated 08.12.2006 passed
by the learned Additional Session Judge No.2, Udaipur, in Criminal
Appeal No.22/2006 whereby the learned appellate court dismissed
the appeal filed by the petitioner against judgment dated
17.07.2006 passed by the learned Civil Judge [J.D.] & Judicial
Magistrate First Class, Gogunda, District Udaipur in Case
No.510/1997 by which the learned trial court convicted and
sentenced the petitioner as under:-
Offence Sentence Fine & default sentence Sec. 279 IPC 3 months' SI Rs.500/- and in default of payment of fine, 15 days' SI Sec. 337 IPC 3 months' SI Rs.500/- and in default of payment of fine, 15 days' SI Sec. 338 IPC 6 months' SI Rs.1,000/- and in default of payment of fine, 1 month SI Sec. 304-A IPC 1 year SI Rs.2,000/- and in default of payment of (Downloaded on 03/04/2025 at 11:11:45 PM) [2025:RJ-JD:17113] (2 of 4) [CRLR-1156/2006] fine, 2 months' SI
2. All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently and the period
spent in judicial custody shall be adjusted in the original imprisonment.
3. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that on 06.11.1997,
complainant Nauja Gameti lodged an oral report at concerned Police
Station alleging that when he and several other persons were traveling
in a Matador car bearing registration No. RJ 27 – 1883, being driven by
the present petitioner in a rash and negligent manner, the car
overturned, as a result of which, the occupants of the vehicle sustained
injuries and one passenger succumbed to injuries during the course of
treatment. On the basis of this report, the police registered a case and
commenced the investigation and after completion of investigation, the
police filed the chargesheet. The learned trial court framed charges
against the petitioner for the offences under Sections 279, 337, 338 and
304-A of IPC. During the course of trial, the prosecution examined as
many as 11 witnesses and submitted certain documents in support of
their case. The accused-petitioner was examined under Section 313
Cr.P.C., in which he denied the allegations against him and claimed trial.
4. The learned trial court after hearing the final arguments of both
sides, convicted and sentenced the accused-petitioner under Sections
279, 337, 338 and 304-A of IPC vide order dated 17.07.2006. Being
aggrieved by the conviction and sentence, the accused-petitioner
preferred an appeal against the conviction and sentence before learned
Additional Session Judge No.2, Udaipur, whereby the appellate court
dismissed the appeal vide judgment dated 08.12.2006.
5. Learned counsel Mr. Anuj Sahlot 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
(Downloaded on 03/04/2025 at 11:11:45 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:17113] (3 of 4) [CRLR-1156/2006]
the learned appellate court, but at the same time, he implores that the
incident took place in the year 1997. The accused-petitioner had
remained in judicial custody for about two months and ten days. No
other case has been reported against him. He hails from a very poor
family and belongs to the weaker section of the society. The accused-
petitioner was aged about 23 years in 1997 at the time of incident and
the accused-petitioner is aged about 51 years at present and has been
facing trial since the year 1997 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 two months and ten
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. 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 long time for which the petitioner has suffered some time
incarceration and the maximum sentence imposed upon him is one year
(Downloaded on 03/04/2025 at 11:11:45 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:17113] (4 of 4) [CRLR-1156/2006]
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 17.07.2006 passed
by learned Civil Judge [J.D.] & Judicial Magistrate First Class, Gogunda ,
District Udaipur in Criminal Case No.510/1997 and the judgment dated
08.12.2006 passed by the learned Additional Session Judge No.2,
Udaipur, in Criminal Appeal No.22/2006 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 imposed by
the trial court is hereby maintained. The amount of fine imposed by the
trial court, if not already deposited by the petitioner, then two months’
time is granted to the petitioner to deposit the fine amount before the
trial court. In default of payment of fine, the petitioner shall undergo
one month’s simple imprisonment. 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
17-mSingh/-
(Downloaded on 03/04/2025 at 11:11:45 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
[ad_1]
Source link