Partly allowed

Devendra Kumar v. State

Rajasthan HC1 May 2024CRLR/651/2004

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court partly allowed the criminal revision petition. It maintained the conviction but modified the sentence to the period already undergone, released the petitioner on bail, and maintained the fine.

What did the court decide?

Sentence reduced to time already undergone; conviction affirmed; petitioner released on bail; fine maintained.

What the court decided

Devendra Kumar Vs State — Corruption | Rajasthan HC (2024)

¶1

[2024:RJ-JD:18960]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶3

S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 651/2004

¶4

Devendra Kumar S/o Shri Unkar Lal, B/c Kansara, R/o Partapur, Banswara (Rajasthan) (Petitioner is at present lodged in Central Jail, Udaipur)

----Petitioner

Versus

State of Rajasthan

----Respondent

For Petitioner(s)	: Mr. P.R. Mehta
For Respondent(s)	: Mr. Mukesh Trivedi,PP

¶10

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR GARG

¶11

Order

¶12

01/05/2024

¶13

By way of filing the instant criminal revision petition under Section 397/401 Cr.P.C., a challenge has been made to the order dated 31.08.2004 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge Fast Track No.2 Banswara, in Criminal Appeal No.12/2004 whereby the learned appellate Court partly allowed the appeal filed against the judgment dated 20.01.1998 passed by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division) & Judicial Magistrate Garhi, District Banswara, in Criminal Case No.721/1996 (Old 247/1980) and acquitted the petitioner for offence under Sections 337 & 338 IPC while maintaining the conviction and sentence awarded by the trial Court for offence under Sections 279 IPC for three months’ R.I. and for offence under Section 304-A IPC for two years’ R.I. alongwith fine of Rs.4,000/- of fine, further undergo three months’ R.I. in default of payment of fine.

[2024:RJ-JD:18960]

[CRLR-651/2004]

(2 of 5)

Both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently.

¶18

The gist of the prosecution story is that on 22.01.1980, complainant Talib Hussain lodged an FIR at PS Garhi to the effect that at about 9:15 AM he departed from Partapur for Banswara in a Jeep bearing No.MPI-2026, which was being driven by the petitioner-Shri Devendra Kansara. In the said Jeep besides the complainant some other persons were also sitting. When they reached Bhagora Mod, a bus came in a rash and negligent manner and hit the Jeep. As a result of which, the complainant and others sustained injuries and Narendra Kumar died on the spot. Upon the aforesaid report, an FIR was registered and after usual investigation, charge-sheet came to be submitted against the petitioner in the Court concerned.

¶19

The Learned Magistrate framed charge against the petitioner for offences under Sections 279, 304A, 337 & 338 IPC and upon denial of guilt by the accused, commenced the trial. During the course of trial, as many as 11 witnesses were examined and documents were exhibited. Thereafter, an explanation was sought from the accused-petitioner under Section 313 Cr.P.C. for which he denied the same and then, after hearing the learned counsel for the accused petitioner and meticulous appreciation of the evidence, learned Trial Judge has convicted the accused for offence under Sections 279, 304A, 337 & 338 of IPC vide judgment dated 20.01.1998 and sentenced him as mentioned above. Aggrieved by the judgment of conviction, he preferred an appeal before the Additional Sessions Judge Fast Track No.2,

[2024:RJ-JD:18960]

[CRLR-651/2004]

(3 of 5)

Banswara, which was partly allowed vide judgment dated 31.08.2004, in which the learned appellate Court has acquitted the petitioner for offence under Sections 337 & 338 IPC while maintaining the conviction for offence under Sections 279 & 304-A IPC. Both these judgments are under assail before this Court in the instant revision petition.

¶24

Learned counsel Mr. P.R. Mehta, representing the petitioner, at the outset submits that he does not dispute the finding of guilt and the judgment of conviction passed by the learned trial court and the learned appellate court, but at the same time, he implores that the incident took place in the year 1980. He had remained in jail for two and a half months after passing of the judgment by the appellate Court. No other case has been reported against him. He hails from a very poor family and belongs to the weaker section of the society. He was 20 years old at the time of incident, now, he is aged about 64 years and is facing trial since long and he has languished in jail for some time, therefore, a lenient view may be taken in reducing his sentence.

¶25

Learned public prosecutor though opposed the submissions made on behalf of the petitioner but does not refute the fact that the petitioner has remained behind the bars for about two and half months and except the present one no other case has been registered against him.

¶26

Since the revision petition against conviction is not pressed and after perusing the material, nothing is noticed which requires interference in the finding of guilt reached by learned trial court, this court does not wish to interfere in the judgment of conviction. Accordingly, the judgment of conviction is maintained.

[2024:RJ-JD:18960]

[CRLR-651/2004]

(4 of 5)

As far as the question of sentence is concerned, the petitioner remained in jail for some time and he is facing the rigor for the last 40 years. Thus, in the light of the judgments passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the cases of Haripada Das Vs. State of West Bangal reported in (1998) 9 SCC 678 and Alister Anthony Pareira vs. State of Maharashtra reported in 2012 2 SCC 648 and considering the circumstances of the case, age of the petitioner, his status in the society and the fact that the case is pending since a pretty long time for which the petitioner has suffered incarceration for some time, the maximum sentence imposed upon him is of two years as well as the fact that he faced financial hardship and had to go through mental agony, this court deems it appropriate to reduce the sentence to the term of imprisonment that the petitioner has already undergone till date. 9. Accordingly, the judgment of conviction and sentence dated 20.01.1998 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division) & Judicial Magistrate, Garhi, District Banswara, in Criminal Case No.721/1996 (Old 247/1980) and the judgment dated 31.08.2004 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge Fast Track No.2, Banswara, in Criminal Appeal No.12/2004 is affirmed but the quantum of sentence awarded by the learned Trial Court is modified to the extent that the sentence he has undergone till date would be sufficient and justifiable to serve the interest of justice. The fine amount is hereby maintained. Two months’ time is granted to deposit the fine before the trial court. In default of payment of fine, the petitioner shall undergo one month’s simple imprisonment. The fine amount, if any, already deposited by the

¶31

(5 of 5) [CRLR-651/2004]

¶32

[2024:RJ-JD:18960]

¶33

petitioner shall be adjusted. The petitioner is on bail. He need not to surrender. His bail bonds are cancelled.

¶34

The revision petition is allowed in part.

¶35

Pending applications, if any, are disposed of.

¶36

Record of the Courts below be sent back.

¶37

(MANOJ KUMAR GARG),J

¶38

24-Ishan/-

Devendra Kumar v. State

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Devendra Kumar 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sajjan Vs State of Rajasthan

Yogesh Kumar @ Rinku Vs State of Rajasthan

Seshkaran Vs State of Rajasthan

Ganga Ram Vs State and Ors.

Kunal Talach Vs Mahip Pancholi

Toshif Vs State of Rajasthan