Partly allowed

Nirbhay Singh S/O Shri Mangilal B/C Ahir v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC12 Sept 2019CRLW/193/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner approached High Court seeking sentence commutation after a 22-year trial for causing death by negligence. Court upheld conviction but commuted sentence for Section 304-A IPC from two years to one year. Petitioner remained in custody for over six months.

What did the court decide?

Sentence under Section 304-A IPC reduced from two years to one year; verdict of conviction maintained.

Nirbhay Singh S/O Shri Mangilal B/C Ahir Vs State of… — Cheque Dishonour | Rajasthan HC (2019)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶2

S.B. Criminal Writ Petition No. 193/2019

¶3

Nirbhay Singh S/o Shri Mangilal B/c Ahir, Aged About 34 Years, R/o Nandana Police Station Susner Distt. Shajapur M.p. At Present In Sub Jail Ramganjmandi Distt. Kota Through His Son Durgesh Yadav

¶4

----Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

State Of Rajasthan, Through P.p.

¶7

----Respondent

¶8

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Harendra Singh with Mr. Jaswant Rathore For State(s) : Mr. Arvind Bhadu, PP

¶9

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PANKAJ BHANDARI

¶10

Order

¶11

12/09/2019

¶12

Petitioner has preferred this writ petition aggrieved by judgment and order dated 28.02.2019 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Ramganj-Mandi, Kota whereby appeal preferred by the petitioner against the judgment and order dated 02.02.2018 was dismissed.

¶13

It is contended by counsel for the petitioner that an accident took place on 17.07.1997 in which a truck fell from road and overturned in a water ditch, resulting into injuries to nine persons and death of four persons.

¶14

It is contended by counsel for the petitioner that the truck was loaded with small marble pieces and as a truck was coming from the opposite side the driver tried to move the vehicle on left side and the truck fell into a ditch. Counsel for the petitioner

¶15

(2 of 3)

¶16

[CRLW-193/2019]

¶17

contends that as per the statement of PW-11 vehicle was being driven at normal speed.

¶18

Counsel contends that he does not press the appeal on merits. The only prayer made before the Court is that the sentence awarded be reduced as the petitioner has faced the agony of trial for a period of 22 years. Counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on Kailash Chand Vs. State of Rajasthan S.B. Criminal Revision No.1117/2018 decided on 04.01.2019 and Nitin Vs. State of Rajasthan S.B. Criminal Revision No.1744/2018 decided on 04.12.2018.

¶19

I have considered the contentions. 6. In Kailash Chand Vs. State of Rajasthan seven persons died due to overturning of vehicle on bridge when the vehicle was crossing the river bridge. The sentence was reduced from two years to one year. 7. In Nitin Vs. State of Rajasthan (supra), the tyres of the vehicle bursted as a result of which driver lost the control. The sentence was reduced by the Court from two years to six months. 8. As per the statement of PW-11 Nemi Chand, the truck was loaded with small marble pieces. It was being driven on the correct side of the road and was being driven at normal speed. Chance of drive turning the vehicle to save collision with truck coming from opposite direction cannot be ruled out. 9. However, since the petitioner is not challenging the judgment of conviction and the only prayer is to reduce the sentence, keeping in view the fact that the petitioner has faced the agony of trial for a period of 22 years and has remained in custody for a period of more than six months, I deem it proper to partly allow the writ petition.

¶20

(3 of 3)

¶21

[CRLW-193/2019]

¶22

The writ petition is partly allowed. While upholding the judgment of conviction passed by the Courts below, the sentence awarded for offence under Sections 279, 377 and 338 IPC is maintained. However, the sentence awarded for the offence under Section 304-A IPC is reduced from two years to one year. Fine passed for the offences remains unaltered. Sentence will run concurrently. In default of payment of fine, petitioner would have to undergo the sentence as provided by the Court below.

¶23

Writ petition is accordingly partly allowed.

¶24

(PANKAJ BHANDARI),J

¶25

Arun/124

Nirbhay Singh S/O Shri Mangilal B/C Ahir v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nirbhay Singh S/O Shri Mangilal B/C Ahir 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

Rajendra S/O Bachraj B/C Dhobi Vs State of Rajasthan

Mahesh Kumar Jangid S/O Shri Murlidhar Jangid, B/C Jangid Vs State of Rajasthan

Akash S/O Ghasilal B/C Koli Mahawar Vs State of Rajasthan

M/S Jetking Infotrain Ltd. Vs State of Rajasthan

Jagdish Singh S/O Harvansh Singh B/C Jat Vs State of Rajasthan

Ram Singh S/O Shri Inder Singh B/C Rajput Vs State of Rajasthan