Partly allowed

Shri Shaitan Singh v. State

Rajasthan HC9 Jan 2018CRLR/1026/2003

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this criminal revision petition, the High Court of Rajasthan addressed the petitioner's submission for sentence reduction after facing proceedings for twenty years. The Court reduced the term of imprisonment from one year to six months under Section 304-A IPC while maintaining the conviction.

What did the court decide?

Sentence of imprisonment reduced from one year to six months under Section 304-A IPC; conviction maintained.

Shri Shaitan Singh Vs State — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Rajasthan HC (2018)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶2

S.B. Criminal Revision No. 1026 / 2003

¶3

Shri Shaitan Singh, S/o Ghasi Singh Rawat, R/o Villate Kotaj, Police Station Nasirabad Sadar, District Ajmer (Rajasthan) (At present confined in Central Jail, Ajmer)

¶4

----Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

State of Rajasthan through P.P.

¶7

----Respondent

¶8

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Vinay Pal Yadav For Respondent(s) : Mr. R.R. Gurjar-P.P.

¶9

HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA

¶10

Order

¶11

09/01/2018

¶12

Petitioner had faced trial in FIR No. 143/1998 registered at Police Station Christianganj, District Ajmer for the offences under Section 279, 337, 304-A of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred as ‘IPC’). Trial Court vide judgment/order dated 12.05.2005 ordered the conviction and sentence of the petitioner under Section 279, 337, 338, 304-A IPC. Appeal filed by the petitioner was dismissed by the Appellate Court vide order dated 30.08.2003. Hence, the present petition by the petitioner.

¶13

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that eyewitness PW-7 and PW-8 had not supported the prosecution case. Infact, PW-2 had reached the spot, after the accident and cannot be described as an eye-witness. Be that as it may, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that he does not challenge the conviction of the petitioner under Section 279, 337, 338, 304-A

¶14

(2 of 2)

¶15

[CRLR-1026/2003]

¶16

IPC, but has submitted that the sentence qua imprisonment of the petitioner be reduced. Petitioner is facing the criminal proceedings for the last about twenty years. Petitioner is not a previous convict and is the sole bread earner of his family.

¶17

Learned State Counsel on the other hand has opposed the petition.

¶18

Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, it would be just and expedient to reduce the sentence qua imprisonment of the petitioner.

¶19

Accordingly, conviction of the petitioner under Section 279, 337, 338, 304-A IPC is maintained. However, sentence qua imprisonment of the petitioner is reduced from simple imprisonment of one year to simple imprisonment for six months under Section 304-A IPC. All the sentences shall run concurrently.

¶20

Petition stands disposed of accordingly.

¶21

(SABINA)J.

¶22

Sudha/19

Shri Shaitan Singh v. State

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shri Shaitan Singh v. State

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt Sahuni Vs State of Rajasthan through Pp

Surajnarain Choudhary Vs State of Rajasthan and Anr.

Jagdish Vs State of Rajasthan and Ors.

Taufik Khan @ Dhanpat Vs State of Rajasthan through Pp

Mahesh Kumar Vs State of Raj and Ors.

Sonu Kanwar Rathore Vs State Women and Child Development Ors.