Partly allowed

Abdul Tahir S/O Shri Abdul Shameem B/C Musalman v. State of Rajasthan through P.P.

Rajasthan HC11 Jan 2019CRLR/1464/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court partly allowed the criminal revision petition against the conviction and sentence of a truck driver charged with offences under Sections 279, 337, 338 and 304-A of IPC. While upholding the conviction, the Court reduced the sentence for offences under Sections 338 and 304-A IPC to six months, noting the petitioner had suffered for 13 years.

What did the court decide?

Sentence for offences under Sections 338 and 304-A IPC reduced to six months; conviction upholds; fine unaltered.

Abdul Tahir S/O Shri Abdul Shameem B/C Musalman Vs State… — Bail and Remand | Rajasthan HC (2019)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶2

S.B. Criminal Revision No. 1464/2018

¶3

Abdul Tahir S/o Shri Abdul Shameem B/c Musalman, R/o House No.161, Kesar Bag, Near Police Line, Police Station Nayapura, Kota, Raj. (At Present In Central Jail, Kota).

¶4

----Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

State Of Rajasthan Through P.P.

¶7

----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Rajesh Kr. Sharma. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Sudesh Saini, PP.

¶8

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PANKAJ BHANDARI

¶9

Order

¶10

11/01/2019

¶11

Petitioner has preferred this revision petition aggrieved by Judgment and Order dated 07.10.2017 passed by Judicial Magistrate No.4 (North), Kota, where petitioner has been convicted for offence under Sections 279, 337, 338 & 304-A of IPC and against the Judgment and Order dated 04.08.2018, passed by Sessions Judge, Kota, whereby appeal preferred by the petitioner was rejected.

¶12

Counsel for the petitioner does not want to press the revision petition on merits. His only contention is that rash and negligent act was not proved beyond reasonable doubt. Truck stopped at a distance of five to ten steps from the place of accident. Scooter driver came from a side lane to main road and at that time collided with the truck, as a result of which, the complainant’s wife and child expired. It is contended that rash and negligent act has

¶13

(2 of 2)

¶14

[CRLR-1464/2018]

¶15

not been proved and the truck was being driven at a very slow speed.

¶16

Learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the revision petition. His contention is that two persons have expired due to the incident for which the petitioner is responsible. 4. I have considered the contentions. 5. The Hon’ble Apex Court in “State of Punjab vs. Saurabh Bakshi (2015) 5 SCC 182” had reduced the sentence from one year to six months.

¶17

The maximum sentence awarded to the petitioner is one year and six months for offence under Section 304-A of IPC, six months for offence under Section 279, six months for offence under Section 337 of IPC and one year for offence under Section 338 of IPC.

¶18

Taking note of the fact that petitioner is not challenging the Judgment of conviction passed by the Courts below, offence is of the year 2005, Petitioner has failed the agony of trial for a period of 13 years, I deem it proper to allow the revision petition.

¶19

Criminal revision is partly allowed, while upholding the Judgment of conviction passed by the Courts below, sentence awarded for offence under Sections 338 & 304-A of IPC are reduced to six months. Fine imposed by the court below for all the offences would however remain unaltered. Petitioner would be reaquired to deposit the fine imposed by the court below or suffer imprisonment in default of payment of fine.

¶20

(PANKAJ BHANDARI),J

¶21

Chandan/27

Abdul Tahir S/O Shri Abdul Shameem B/C Musalman v. State of Rajasthan through P.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Abdul Tahir S/O Shri Abdul Shameem B/C Musalman v. State of Rajasthan through P.P.

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

Sona (Sonu) Bai D/O Shanti Lal B/C Brahmin Vs State of Rajasthan through Pp

Rajesh S/O Ramjilal B/C Gurjar Vs State of Rajasthan

Deenu @ Deen Mohammed Son of Shri Chahat Khan, by Caste Mev Vs State of Rajasthan

Jitendra Nath S/O Shri Anandnath, by Caste Nath Vs State of Rajasthan

Arjun Singh Dhir Vs Deepak Keswan and Anr.

Rohitash @ Rahul S/O Bane Singh @ Baniya B/C Jat Vs State of Rajasthan