Rajasthan High Court – Jodhpur
Ramesh Kumar vs State (2025:Rj-Jd:33859) on 30 July, 2025
Author: Manoj Kumar Garg
Bench: Manoj Kumar Garg
[2025:RJ-JD:33859]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 106/2009
Ramesh Kumar S/o Shri Ramswaroop Ji, R/o Patheda, Police
Station Mahdendragarh, District Mahendragarh, Hariyana.
----Petitioner
Versus
State of Rajasthan, through Public Prosecutor.
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. P.C. Solanki
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vikram Singh Rajpurohit, PP
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR GARG
Order
30/07/2025
1. By way of filing the instant criminal revision petition, a
challenge has been made to the order dated 19.01.2009 passed
by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track, Rajsamand in
Criminal Appeal No.186/2008 whereby the learned appellate Court
dismissed the appeal filed against the judgment of conviction
dated 17.09.2007 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First
Class, Deogarh, District Rajsamand in Criminal Case No.205/1990
(196/2005) by which the learned trial Judge convicted and
sentenced the petitioner as under:-
Offence Sentence Fine Sentence in
default of fine
Section 279 IPC 6 months' S.I. Rs.500/- 10 days' S.I.
Section 304A IPC 2 years' S.I. Rs.1,000/- 15 days' S.I.
Sec.134/187 of M.V. --- Rs.500/- 10 days' S.I.
Act
(Downloaded on 01/08/2025 at 11:19:29 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:33859] (2 of 4) [CRLR-106/2009]
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 on 29.09.1990,
complainant Loom Singh gave an oral report to the Police Station,
Diver to the effect that he saw a truck hitting one Meera Bai, when
she was crossing the road. The said truck was being driven by the
present petitioner bearing registration No.DIL-1128. 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 & 304-A of IPC and Sections
134/187 of Motor Vehicles Act and upon denial of guilt by the
accused, commenced the trial. During the course of trial, as many
as 07 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 & 304A of IPC and Sections 134/187 of Motor
Vehicles Act vide judgment dated 17.09.2007 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 19.01.2009. Both these
judgments are under assail before this Court in the instant
revision petition.
(Downloaded on 01/08/2025 at 11:19:29 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:33859] (3 of 4) [CRLR-106/2009]
5. Learned Counsel Mr. P.C. Solanki, 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 1990. He had
remained in jail for a reasonable period 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 1990 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 some time 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 35 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,
(Downloaded on 01/08/2025 at 11:19:29 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:33859] (4 of 4) [CRLR-106/2009]
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 two years SI 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 dated
19.01.2009 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast
Track, Rajsamand, in Criminal Appeal No.186/2008 & the
judgment dated dated 17.09.2007 passed by the learned Judicial
Magistrate, First Class, Deogarh, District Rajsamand, in Criminal
Case No.205/1990 (196/2005) 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
31-GKaviya/-
(Downloaded on 01/08/2025 at 11:19:29 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)