In this criminal revision, the High Court held that due to the protracted pendency of the case since 1998, the petitioner's sentence for rash driving and causing death was reduced to the period of imprisonment already undergone, while maintaining the conviction.
Sentences reduced to the period already undergone; bail bonds discharged; conviction maintained.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
[2024:RJ-JD:19719]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 1065/2002
Gulab Singh S/o Kesar Singh, R/o Village Vanugopa, Police Station Kurabar, District Udaipur.
----Petitioner
Versus
State of Rajasthan.
----Respondent
| For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Praveen Vyas |
|---|
| For Respondent(s) : Mr. S.K. Bhati,PP |
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP MATHUR
Order
01/05/2024
This criminal revision petition under Section 397 read with 401 Cr.P.C. has been preferred against the judgment dated 26.11.2002 passed by the learned Special Judge SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, Udaipur in Cr. Appeal No.25/2001 whereby the judgment dated 19.04.2001 passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate No.2, Udaipur in Cr. Original Case No.129/1998 was upheld. The petitioner was convicted and
sentenced vide order dated 19.04.2001 as below:
| Conviction for offences under Sections: |
Sentence | s | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 279 IPC | 6 months’ Rs.1,000/- payment undergo 1 |
S.I and and in of fine, months’ S. |
a fine default to furt I. |
of of her |
| 304-A IPC | 2 years’ Rs.5,000/- payment undergo 3 |
S.I and and in of fine, days’ S.I. |
a fine default to furt |
of of her |
All sentences were ordered to run concurrently.
[2024:RJ-JD:19719]
[CRLR-1065/2002]
(2 of 4)
Succinctly stated, facts of the case are that on 02.06.1998, at around 08:45 A.M., the petitioner due to his rash and negligent driving of the truck bearing registration No.RJ-27-G-0728 hit the scooter on which Ramesh Mehta & Smt. Ren Manjusha were travelling towards Hiranmagri Sector 4. The petitioner crushed Smt. Ren Manjusha after she had fell on the road, causing her severe injuries on her head and face from which she died on the spot.
Thereafter, an FIR was registered against the petitioner at Police Station Hiranmagri and the investigation was commenced. A charge sheet was presented against the accused- petitioner before the learned trial court for the offences punishable under Sections 279 & 304-A IPC and the trial was commenced. The petitioner was convicted by the learned trial court below for the aforesaid offences vide judgment dated 19.04.2001 which was upheld by the learned appellate court vide judgment dated 26.11.2002.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has undergone detention for some period and the case is pending against them since 1998. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is facing agony of a long protracted trial and therefore, without making any interference on merits/conviction, the sentences awarded to the present petitioner may be substituted with the period of sentences already undergone by him.
Learned Public Prosecutor opposes the submissions made on behalf of the petitioner. However, he was not in a position to dispute that the present revision petition is pending since 2002.
Heard.
[2024:RJ-JD:19719]
[CRLR-1065/2002]
(3 of 4)
A perusal of the impugned judgments makes is manifest that the alleged incident happened in the year 1998 and the present revision petition is pending adjudication since 2002.
Hon’ble the Supreme Court of India in the cases of Alister
Anthony Pareira Vs. State of Maharashtra (2012)2 SCC 648 and Haripada Das Vs. State of W.B. (1998)9 SCC 678, was pleased to observe as under:
Alister Anthony Pareira (supra)
“There is no straitjacket formula for sentencing an accused on proof of crime. The courts have evolved certain principles: twin objective of the sentencing policy is deterrence and correction. What sentence would meet the ends of justice depends on the facts and circumstances of each case and the court must keep in mind the gravity of the crime, motive for the crime, nature of the offence and all other attendant circumstances.”
Haripada Das (supra)
“… considering the fact that the respondent had already undergone detention for some period and the case is pending for a pretty long time for which he had suffered both financial hardship and mental agony and also considering the fact that he had been released on bail as far back as on 17-1-1986, we feel that the ends of justice will be met in the facts of the case if the sentence is reduced to the period already undergone...”
In the light of aforesaid discussion, precedent law and keeping in view the limited prayer made on behalf of the petitioner, the present revision is partly allowed.
Accordingly, while maintaining the conviction of the petitioner for the offences punishable under Sections 279 & 304-A of the IPC, the sentences awarded to him are hereby reduced to the period already undergone by him. The petitioner is on bail. He need not surrender. His bail bonds stand discharged accordingly.
All pending applications stand disposed of.
[2024:RJ-JD:19719]
[CRLR-1065/2002]
(4 of 4)
Record of the case be sent back to the learned court below
forthwith.
(KULDEEP MATHUR),J
4-mohit/-
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the long pendency of the criminal trial warrants modification of the sentence awarded to the petitioner.
Whether the petitioner's sentence may be reduced to the period of detention already undergone.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Alister Anthony Pareira Vs. State of MaharashtraExplained¶29
Alister Anthony Pareira Vs. State of Maharashtra (2012)2 SCC 648 · Who else cites this
Haripada Das Vs. State of W.B.Explained¶29
Haripada Das Vs. State of W.B. (1998)9 SCC 678 · Who else cites this
2 provisions across 1 enactments
Gulab Singh
State of Rajasthan
Kuldeep Mathur
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
Kuldeep Mathur
Parties & counsel
