Partly allowed

Kailash Chand S/O Shri Laxminarayan v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC4 Jan 2019CRLR/1117/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal revision where the petitioner did not challenge conviction but sought sentence commutation, the High Court partly allowed the plea. While refusing full commutation due to the risky nature of the unauthorized vehicle used in an accident, it reduced the sentence for culpable homicide not amounting to murder from two years to one year rigorous imprisonment.

What did the court decide?

Sentence for culpable homicide not amounting to murder reduced from two years simple imprisonment to one year rigorous imprisonment; fine unaltered; other sentences upheld.

Kailash Chand S/O Shri Laxminarayan Vs State of… — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Rajasthan HC (2019)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶2

S.B. Criminal Revision No. 1117/2018

¶3

Kailash Chand S/o Shri Laxminarayan, Aged About 32 Years, R/o Haripuriya, Police Station Ghatoli District Jhalawar, At Present In Sub Jail, Aklera, District Jhalawar.

¶4

----Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

The State Of Rajasthan through PP

¶7

----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Biri Singh, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Rajesh Chaudhary For Respondent(s) : Mr. Sudesh Saini, PP

¶8

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PANKAJ BHANDARI

¶9

Judgment / Order

¶10

04/01/2019

¶11

1 Petitioner has preferred this revision petition aggrieved by judgment and order dated 14.12.2017, passed by Judicial Magistrate, Aklera, District Jhalawar, whereby the petitioner has been convicted for offence under Section 279, 336 & 304-A of IPC and has been sentenced to one month simple imprisonment for offence under Section 279 IPC, two months simple imprisonment for offence under Section 336 IPC and two years simple imprisonment for offence under Section 304-A IPC. Court has further imposed a fine of Rs.200/- for offence under Section 279 IPC and on non payment of fine to further undergo seven days simple imprisonment, fine of Rs.300/- for offence under Section 336 IPC, on non-payment of fine to further undergo seven days simple imprisonment and fine of Rs.2000/- for offence under Section 304-A IPC, on non-payment of fine to further undergo six

¶12

(2 of 4)

¶13

[CRLR-1117/2018]

¶14

months simple imprisonment and against the judgment and order dated 30.06.2018 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Aklera, District Jhalawar, whereby, appeal preferred by the petitioner was rejected.

¶15

Counsel for the petitioner does not want to press the revision petition on merits. His contention is that the matter is of the year 2007 and petitioner has faced the agony of trial of eleven years. All the witnesses who have deposed before the Court have stated that at the time when the petitioner tried to cross the river bridge, only six inches water was flowing over the river bridge. At the time when the vehicle reached at the center of the river, flow of river water increased and the vehicle got overturned, as a result of which, seven passengers drowned.

¶16

It is contended that all the witnesses have deposed that petitioner was at fault and it was due to water gush at a high pace that the vehicle overturned. 4. Counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on “Nitin vs State of Rajasthan” S.B. Criminal Revision No.1744/2018 decided by this Court on 04.12.2018, wherein, the sentence was reduced from the period of two years to six months and the fine was increased.

¶17

Learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the revision petition. His contention is that petitioner was driving a Jugad which is not an authorized vehicle under the Motor Vehicle Act and hence there is no reason for reducing the sentence awarded to the petitioner. It is also contended that due to rash and negligence act of the petitioner, as many as seven persons have died.

¶18

I have considered the contentions.

¶19

(3 of 4)

¶20

[CRLR-1117/2018]

¶21

Since the petitioner is not challenging the judgment on merits, I do not deem it proper to go into the question of conviction of the petitioner, however, as far as, sentence is concerned, prayer is made before the Court for reducing the sentence to the period already undergone on the basis that the witnesses have stated that there was a gush of water, as a result of which the Jugad overturned. Jugad is a type of vehicle used in villages which is not authorized under the Motor Vehicle Act which is being used by the villagers day to day for transportation from one place to another. Petitioner herein, was driving the Jugad and when he entered the river bridge, the water was around six inches over the river bridge.

¶22

As per the statement of witnesses, when the Jugad was somewhere between the river bridge, there was a sudden gush of the water and the Jugad overturned. Since the petitioner was driving the Jugad which is not authorized by law and he took the risk of crossing the river, sentence cannot be reduced to the period already undergone by the petitioner.

¶23

However, in view of the fact that petitioner has faced the agony of trial for a period of eleven years and has remained in custody for a period of more than six months and is a poor farmer, I deem it proper to partly allow the revision petition. 10. The criminal revision petition is, accordingly, partly allowed. 11. While upholding the judgment of conviction passed by the Court below, sentence awarded for offence under Sections 279 & 336 IPC is not altered, whereas sentence awarded for offence under Section 304-A IPC is reduced from two years simple imprisonment to one year rigorous imprisonment. The remaining

¶24

(4 of 4)

¶25

[CRLR-1117/2018]

¶26

sentence now to be suffered would be rigorous imprisonment. Fine however, remain unaltered.

¶27

Application for suspension of sentence also stands disposed.

¶28

(PANKAJ BHANDARI),J

¶29

Arti/16

Kailash Chand S/O Shri Laxminarayan v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kailash Chand S/O Shri Laxminarayan v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mohd.Moien and Ors. Vs State

Sanwalya @ Sanwala Vs State of Rajasthan through P P

Pappu @ Basantilal S/O Kashiram Vs State of Rajasthan

Narendra Singh Lodha S/O Sh. Gulab Singh Lodha B/C Oswal Jain Vs State of Rajasthan through Pp

Raju Theth @ Rajendra Vs State of Rajasthan through P P

Anil Sogani and Anr. Vs State of Rajasthan through P P