Partly allowed

Shanti Lal v. State

Rajasthan HC8 May 2024CRLR/789/2003

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court, in a criminal revision petition filed years after conviction for rash driving and negligent death, observed the extreme delay and long detention suffered by the petitioner. Relying on Supreme Court precedents regarding the ends of justice, the court substituted the award of sentences with the period already undergone.

What did the court decide?

Sentences reduced to the period already undergone; petitioner to deposit fine only; bail bonds discharged; record sent back.

Shanti Lal Vs State — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Rajasthan HC (2024)

¶1

[2024:RJ-JD:21285]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶3

S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 789/2003

¶4

Shanti Lal S/o Shri Bheemji, Resident of village Asela, P.S. Sadar, District Doongarpur.

----Petitioner

Versus

State of Rajasthan

----Respondent

For Petitioner(s)	: Mr. K.C. Sharma
	Mr. ManojRao
For Respondent(s)	: Mr. S.S. Rajpurohit,PP

¶10

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP MATHUR ORDER

¶11

08/05/2024

¶12

This criminal revision petition under Section 397 read with 401 Cr.P.C. has been preferred against the judgment dated 06.08.2003 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Doongarpur in Cr. Appeal No.15/2001 whereby the judgment dated 14.03.2001 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Doongarpur in Cr. Original Case No.62/1999 was modified.

¶13

The petitioner was convicted and sentenced by the Judicial

¶14

Magiustrate First Class, Doongarpur vide order dated 14.03.2001

¶15

as below:

¶16

Conviction for offences under Sections:	Sentences
279 IPC	One months’ imprisonment
337 IPC	One months’ imprisonment
338 IPC	six months’ imprisonment
304-A IPC	One years’ imprisonment and a fine of Rs.1,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo one months’ imprisonment.

(2 of 5)

[2024:RJ-JD:21285]

[CRLR-789/2003]

All substantive sentences were ordered to run concurrently.

¶21

The appellate court i.e. learned Sessions Judge, Doongarpur vide judgment dated 06.08.2003 modified the sentences part as

¶22

under:

¶23

Conviction for offences under Sections:	Sentences
279 IPC	A fine of Rs.500/- and in of payment of fine to undergo 15 days impriso	default further nment
337 IPC	A fine of Rs.500/- and in of payment of fine to undergo 15 days impriso	default further nment
338 IPC	A fine of Rs.1,000/- default of payment of further undergo one simple imprisonment	and in fine to month
304-A IPC	Six month’s imprisonment and fi Rs.5,000/- and in def payment of fine, to undergo 2 months’ imprisonment	simple ne of ault of further simple

¶24

Succinctly stated, facts apparent from the record of the case are that on 10.02.1999, the complainant – Gokalji submitted an oral report before the SHO of Police Station Sadar Doongarpur alleging interalia that at around 06:30 A.M., he along with Kalji, Ramji and Velji were travelling to Doongarpur in a tempo of Ratan Lal Patel bearing registration No. RJ-12-P-0880. The said tempo was being driven by the petitioner in a very rash and negligent manner as a result whereof, at around 07:00 A.M., the said tempo turned turtle.

¶25

In the aforesaid accident, all the passengers thereof sustained injuries and were immediately taken to the hospital. One of the passengers i.e. Velji died during his treatment at the hospital.

[2024:RJ-JD:21285]

[CRLR-789/2003]

(3 of 5)

Thereafter, an FIR was registered against the petitioner and investigation was commenced. A charge-sheet was filed by the investigating agency against the accused- petitioner before the learned trial court for the offences punishable under Sections 279, 337, 338 & 304-A IPC and the trial was commenced.

¶30

The petitioner was convicted by the learned trial court below for the aforesaid offences vide judgment dated 14.03.2001 which was modified as above by the learned appellate court vide judgment dated 06.08.2003.

¶31

Learned counsel for the revisionist-petitioner submitted that the sentences so awarded to the petitioner were suspended by this Court, vide order dated 04.09.2003 in S.B.Cr. Misc. Bail (Suspension of Sentences) Application No.206/2003.

¶32

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has undergone detention for some period and the case is pending against them since 1999. 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.

¶33

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 2003. Heard.

¶34

A perusal of the impugned judgments makes is manifest that the alleged incident happened in the year 1999 and the present revision petition is pending adjudication since 2003.

(4 of 5)

[2024:RJ-JD:21285]

[CRLR-789/2003]

Hon’ble the Supreme Court of India in the cases of Alister

¶39

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:

¶40

Alister Anthony Pareira (supra)

¶41

“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.”

¶42

Haripada Das (supra)

¶43

“… 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...”

¶44

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.

¶45

Accordingly, while maintaining the conviction of the petitioner for the offences punishable under Sections 279, 338, 337 & 304-A of IPC, the sentences awarded to him are hereby reduced to the period already undergone by him subject to him depositing the amount of fine before the trial court.

¶46

The petitioner is on bail. He need not surrender. His bail bonds stand discharged accordingly.

¶47

All pending applications stand disposed of.

[2024:RJ-JD:21285]

[CRLR-789/2003]

(5 of 5)

Record of the case be sent back to the learned court below

¶52

forthwith.

¶53

(KULDEEP MATHUR),J

¶54

16-Hanuman/-

Shanti Lal v. State

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shanti Lal 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

Dinesh Kumar Vs Krishan Kumar

Hathi Singh Vs State

Jaiprakash Sharma Vs State of Rajasthan

Mahendra Ram Vs State of Rajasthan

Rajudevi Vs State and Anr.

Vijendra Ubba Vs State of Rajasthan