Partly allowed

Ramesh Chand v. State

Rajasthan HC28 Aug 2024CRLR/254/2004

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a series appeal against conviction and sentence under Section 304A IPC, the court held that while the conviction should not be interfered with, the petitioner should be given lenient treatment and the sentence reduced to the period already undergone due to the long pendency of the case. However, the petitioner was required to pay the fine within two months if not already paid with the father of

What did the court decide?

The substantive sentence of imprisonment awarded to the petitioner is reduced to the period already undergone. The petitioner shall pay the fine amount of Rs. 2000/- to the father of the deceased with

Ramesh Chand Vs State — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Rajasthan HC (2024)

¶1

[2024:RJ-JP:36064]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶3

S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 254/2004

¶4

Ramesh Chand son of Puralal R/o Soyat Distt Shajapur, At present in District Jail Jhalawar

¶5

----Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

State of Rajasthan through PP

¶8

----Respondent

¶9

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Harendra Singh For Respondent(s) : Mr. Jitendra Singh Rathore, Addl.G.A.

¶10

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA

¶11

Order

¶12

28/08/2024

¶13

Instant revision petition has been filed on behalf of accused/petitioner under Section 397 read with Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 being aggrieved by judgment 27.02.2004 passed by the Special Judge, SC/ST Cases Jhalawar in Criminal Appeal No.45/2000, whereby the appeal filed by the petitioner has been dismissed and the judgment dated 10.01.2000 passed by Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Pirawa, District Jhalawar in Criminal Case No.719/93 (529/91), whereby the petitioner has been convicted for the offence under Section 304A IPC & sentenced to undergo 8 months' rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs. 2,000/- and in default thereof to further undergo 1 month simple imprisonment, has been affirmed.

¶14

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he does not want to assail the conviction of the petitioner on merits and confines his arguments with the alternative prayer of reduction of

[2024:RJ-JP:36064]

[CRLR-254/2004]

(2 of 3)

sentence awarded by the trial court to the period already undergone by him. So, he has prayed that this petition filed by the petitioner be partly allowed and the sentence awarded to the petitioner be reduced to the period already undergone by him.

¶19

On the other hand, learned Addl.G.A. appearing for the State, has submitted that there is no illegality or infirmity in the impugned judgments whatsoever and, therefore, the same do not call for any interference in exercise of revisional jurisdiction by this Court. However, he did not seriously dispute the submission regarding reduction of sentence.

¶20

Heard learned counsel for the rival parties at length. Perused the impugned judgments and the entire record of the case.

¶21

Since the present revision petition against conviction is not pressed on merits and after perusing the material, nothing is noticed which requires interference in the finding of guilt reached by the trial Court and affirmed by the appellate Court. This Court does not wish to interfere in the judgment of conviction. Accordingly, the judgment of conviction is maintained.

¶22

So far as the question of quantum of sentence is concerned, the petitioner has already suffered the agony of protracted trial, spanning over a period of more than 33 years and he remained incarcerated for some time after passing of the judgment, hence, the case of the petitioner deserves to be dealt with leniency. Thus, guided by the judicial pronouncements made by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the cases of Alister Anthony Pareira Vs. State of Maharashtra , (2012) 2 SCC 648 and Haripada Das Vs. State of West Bengal , (1998) 9 SCC 678 and considering the facts & circumstances of the case, the age of the petitioner, his status in

[2024:RJ-JP:36064]

[CRLR-254/2004]

(3 of 3)

the society and the fact that he faced financial hardship and he had to go through mental agony, this Court is of the view that the ends of justice would be met, if sentence imposed upon the petitioner is reduced to the period already undergone by him.

¶27

Looking to the facts & circumstances of the present case & considering the submissions made at bar, more particularly the long pendency of the case & the old date of alleged incident as well as keeping in mind the precedent laws (supra), the revision petition is partly allowed. While maintaining the conviction of the petitioner for the alleged offence, the substantive sentence of imprisonment awarded to the petitioner is reduced to the period already undergone by him.

¶28

However, the petitioner shall pay the fine amount of Rs. 2,000/- as levied by the trial Court vide judgment dated 10.01.2000 and affirmed by the Appellate Court vide judgment dated 27.02.2004 to the father of the deceased, if not already paid, within two months from today, failing which the said amount shall be recovered in terms of Section 461 BNSS by concerned District Collector as a land revenue. The petitioner is on bail. He need not to surrender. His bail bonds stand cancelled accordingly.

¶29

Record be sent to the trial Court.

¶30

(NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA),J

¶31

Jatin/Ritu/5

Ramesh Chand v. State

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ramesh Chand v. State

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

Smt Madhuy Meena Vs State of Rajasthan and Ors.

Lalaram Sharma Son of Late Shri Nrasingh Lal Vs State of Rajasthan

Anju Kumari D/O Anil Kumar Bijarnia Vs State of Rajasthan

Keshanta @ Chidi Vs State of Rajasthan and Ors.

Bharosi Vs Ram Singh and Ors.

Om Prakash S/O Shri Chand Ram B/C Jat Vs State of Rajasthan