Rajasthan High Court – Jodhpur
Net Ram vs State (2025:Rj-Jd:34494) on 23 July, 2025
Author: Kuldeep Mathur
Bench: Kuldeep Mathur
[2025:RJ-JD:34494]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 858/2008
Net Ram S/o Shri Shyokaran, Aged about 50 years, R/o Ward
No. 24 Pareek Colony, Hanumangarh Town, Tehsil & Distt-
Hanumangarh.
----Petitioner
Versus
State of Rajasthan.
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Ashvini Swami
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Narendra Gehlot, PP
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP MATHUR
ORDER
23/07/2025
1. This criminal revision petition under Section 397 read with
401 Cr.P.C. has been preferred against the judgment dated
07.08.2008 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge No.1,
Hanumangarh in Criminal Appeal No.23/2008, wherein the order
of conviction and sentences dated 17.04.2008 passed by the
learned Judicial Magistrate first Class, Hanumangarh in Criminal
Case No.101/2007 for the offences under Sections 279, 304A and
338 of IPC was confirmed.
2. The learned Trial court vide order of conviction and
judgement dated 17.04.2008, convicted and sentenced the
accused petitioner as below: –
Offences Under Sections Sentences
279 IPC Six months' S.I. with fine of
Rs.1,000/- and in default of payment
of fine to further undergo one-month
S.I.
338 IPC One year's S.I. with fine of Rs.1000/-
(Downloaded on 15/08/2025 at 09:45:31 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:34494] (2 of 4) [CRLR-858/2008]
and, in default of payment of fine to
further undergo two-month S.I.
304A IPC Two years' S.I. with fine of
Rs.10,000/- and in default of payment
of fine to further undergo six-month
S.I.
All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently
3. As per the prosecution’s case, on 13.12.2006, the injured
Amra Ram made parcha bayan before the SHO of Police Station
Hanumangarh Town alleging inter alia that on the morning of the
said day, Amra Ram and Omprakash were travelling in a camel
cart towards their farm in the village. When they reached midway,
suddenly the driver of a white car bearing registration No.HR-25A-
6320 hit their camel cart while driving in a rash and negligent
manner. The injured persons were rushed to the hospital but
Omprakash was declared dead upon reaching the hospital.
4. On the basis of statement made in the parcha bayan, an FIR
No.654/2006 was registered at Police Station Hanumangarh Town,
District Hanumangarh for the offences punishable under Sections
279, 338 and 304A of the IPC and the investigation was
commenced. After filing of charge sheet and upon completion of
trial, the petitioner- driver of the offending vehicle was convicted
by the learned trial court below for the offences under Sections
279, 338 and 304A of the IPC vide judgment dated 17.04.2008
which was upheld by the learned Appellate Court vide judgment
dated 07.08.2008.
5. Learned counsel for the revisionist-petitioner submitted that
the sentences so awarded to the revisionist-petitioner were
(Downloaded on 15/08/2025 at 09:45:31 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:34494] (3 of 4) [CRLR-858/2008]
suspended by this court, vide order dated 18.08.2008 in S.B.Cr.
Misc. Bail (Suspension of Sentence) Application No.294/2008.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the
petitioner has already undergone detention for some period and
case is pending against him since 2006. It was further submitted
that the petitioner has been facing the agony of a long and
protracted trial.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioner has prayed that without
making any interference on merits/conviction, the sentences so
awarded to the present revisionist- petitioner may be substituted
with the period of sentences already undergone by him.
8. Per Contra, learned Public Prosecutor opposes the
submissions made on behalf of the petitioner. However, he was
not in a position to dispute that the present revision petition is
pending since 2008.
9. Heard.
10. A perusal of the impugned judgments makes it manifest that
the alleged incident happened in the year 2006 and the present
revision petition is pending adjudication since 2008.
11. The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Alister
Anthony Pareira Vs. State of Maharashtra reported in
(2012)2 SCC 648 and Haripada Das Vs. State of W.B.
reported in (1998)9 SCC 678, was pleased to observe as under:
Alister Anthony Pareira (supra)
(Downloaded on 15/08/2025 at 09:45:31 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:34494] (4 of 4) [CRLR-858/2008]“There is no straitjacket formula for sentencing an accused on
proof of crime. The courts have evolved certain principles: twin
objective of the sentencing policy is deterrence and correction.
What sentence would meet the ends of justice depends on the
facts and circumstances of each case and the court must keep in
mind the gravity of the crime, motive for the circumstances.”
Haripada Das (supra)
“…considering the fact that the respondent had case is pending
for a pretty long time for which he had already undergone
detention for some period and the suffered both financial hardship
and mental agony and also considering the fact that he had been
released on bail as far back as on 17-1-1986, we feel that the
ends of justice will be met in the facts of the case if the sentence
is reduced to the period already undergone…”
12. In the light of aforesaid discussion and precedent law and
keeping in view the limited prayer made on behalf of the present
petitioner, this revision petition is partly allowed.
13. Accordingly, while maintaining the conviction of the
petitioner for the offences under Sections 279, 338 and 304A of
IPC, the sentences awarded to him are hereby reduced to the
period already undergone by him. The petitioner is on bail. He
need not surrender. His bail bonds stand discharged accordingly.
14. All pending applications (if any) also stand disposed of
accordingly.
15. Record of the case be sent back to the learned court below
forthwith.
(KULDEEP MATHUR),J
15-divya/-
(Downloaded on 15/08/2025 at 09:45:31 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)