Partly allowed

Balu Singh S/O Uday Singh B/C Sondhya Rajput v. State of Rajasthan through Pp

Rajasthan HC8 Mar 2019CRLR/123/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a special bail criminal revision, the High Court of Rajasthan reduced the petitioner's sentence from one year to six months for offences under Sections 279 and 304A IPC and certain clauses of the Motor Vehicles Act. The court upheld the conviction but mitigated the punishment due to the prolonged trial agony, while maintaining the requirement to deposit fines or face imprisonment in lieu thereo

What did the court decide?

Sentence reduced from one year to six months. Conviction upheld. Petitioner required to deposit fine or suffer imprisonment in lieu.

Balu Singh S/O Uday Singh B/C Sondhya Rajput Vs… — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Rajasthan HC (2019)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶2

S.B. Criminal Revision No. 123/2019

¶3

Balu Singh S/o Uday Singh B/c Sondhya Rajput, R/o Nipaniya Kheda Ps Dug Dist. Jhalawar (At Present Confined At Bhawanimandi Jail)

¶4

----Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

State Of Rajasthan Through Pp, Raj.

¶7

----Respondent

¶8

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Pranay Raj Singh Jhala For Respondent(s) : Mr. Prashant Sharma, PP

¶9

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PANKAJ BHANDARI

¶10

Order

¶11

08/03/2019

¶12

Petitioner has preferred this revision petition aggrieved by judgment and order dated 23.05.2018 passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chomhala, District Jhalawar whereby petitioner has been convicted for offence under Sections 279, 304A IPC and Section 3/181, 146/196, 134/187, 5/180 M.V. Act and fine of Rs.500/- has been imposed for offence under Section 279, fine of Rs.200/- for offence under Section 3/181 of M.V. Act and fine of Rs.200/- for offence under Section 146/196 of M.V. Act. For offence under Section 304A., court has imposed a sentence of one year rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs.500/-. Court has also imposed sentence in lieu of non deposition of fine and against judgment and order dated 03.01.2019, appeal preferred by the petitioner was partly allowed. Petitioner was acquitted for offence under Section 134/187, 146/196 and 3/181

¶13

(2 of 3) [CRLR-123/2019]

¶14

of M.V. Act. However, his sentence and fine for offence under Section 279 and 304A remained unaltered.

¶15

Counsel for the petitioner does not press the revision on merits. His contention is that the road on which the tractor was being driven, was the curved. Petitioner was driving on his side of the road and suddenly a small girl came running on the road and to save her, petitioner applied brakes, which is revealed from Ex.P6 site plan.

¶16

Learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the revision petition.

¶17

This Court in the case of Purushottam Vs. State of Rajasthan (S.B. Criminal Revision No.1187/2018) decided on 04.01.2019., in facts of that case reduced the sentence from two years to six months and in Kailash Chand Vs. The State of Rajasthan (S.B. Criminal Revision No.1117/2018) decided on 04.01.2019., in the facts of that case, has reduced the sentence from two years to one year.

¶18

The incident took place in January, 2008. Petitioner has faced the agony of trial for 11 years, as per the site plan Ex.P6, petitioner was driving on his side of the road. However, in view of the fact that petitioner is not challenging his judgment of conviction and has been facing the agony of trial, relying on judgments referred herein above, I deem it proper to reduce the sentence from one year to six months.

¶19

The revision petition is accordingly partly allowed. While upholding the judgment of conviction the sentence is reduced to six months. Petitioner however would be required to deposit the fine or suffer imprisonment in lieu of non deposition of fine.

¶20

Revision petition is accordingly partly allowed.

¶21

(3 of 3)

¶22

[CRLR-123/2019]

¶23

Application for suspension of sentence stands disposed. Record of the Court below be returned.

¶24

Copy of this order be sent to the concerned Court by fax/email today itself with a direction to serve a photostat copy of the same to the appellant/s and an additional copy of this order be also sent to the concerned Court by ordinary process.

¶25

(PANKAJ BHANDARI),J

¶26

Arun/29

Balu Singh S/O Uday Singh B/C Sondhya Rajput v. State of Rajasthan through Pp

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Balu Singh S/O Uday Singh B/C Sondhya Rajput v. State of Rajasthan through Pp

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

Davesh@Daveshwar @ Raj S/O Rameshchand Vs State of Rajasthan through Pp

Yusuf Khan S/O Shri Kamruddin B/C Musalman Vs State of Rajasthan

Rahul Grover S/O Late Shri Jagmohan Grover B/C Khatri Vs State of Rajasthan through Pp

Manoj S/O Sadhuram, by Caste Khatik Vs State of Rajasthan

Rodulal S/O Gokul Prasad B/C Lodha Vs State of Rajasthan through Pp

Shanu Painter @ Mohammad Shakire S/O Habeeb Mohammad B/C Musalman Vs State of Rajasthan through Pp