Partly allowed

Sarjeet S/O Balaram, v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC27 Nov 2024CRLW/786/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Convict-driver of a bus involved in a fatal road accident challenged his appellate affirmation of conviction and sought reduction of sentence. The High Court maintained the conviction but, citing age, family circumstances, prolonged trial and prior compensation awards, reduced imprisonment to time already undergone while upholding fine and compensation directions.

What did the court decide?

Conviction maintained; substantive imprisonment reduced to period already undergone; fine and Rs.50,000 compensation upheld; petitioner to be released forthwith with Section 437-A bond.

Sarjeet S/O Balaram, Vs State of Rajasthan — Bail and Remand | Rajasthan HC (2024)

¶1

[2024:RJ-JP:47948]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶3

S.B. Criminal Writ Petition No. 786/2024

¶4

Sarjeet S/o Balaram, R/o Bhobiya, Police Station Pilani, District Jhunjhunu (Rajasthan).

¶5

----Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

State Of Rajasthan, Through Public Prosecutor

¶8

----Respondent

¶9

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Mithlesh Kumar For Respondent(s) : Mr. Rishi Raj Singh Rathore, PP Mr. Hem Singh

¶10

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR UPMAN

¶11

J U D G M E N T

¶12

DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : : 27/11/2024

¶13

By way of this criminal writ petition, the convict-petitioner has challenged the judgment dated 27.03.2024 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge No.4, Sikar in Regular Criminal Appeal (CIS) No.135/2019, whereby the learned Appellate Court dismissed the appeal, filed by the petitioner against the judgment of conviction and sentence dated 26.07.2019 passed by learned Gram Nyayalaya, Kudli, District Sikar in Regular Criminal Case No.30/2012 (CIS No.30/2012) and affirmed the same. Vide judgment dated 26.07.2019 passed by the learned trial court, the petitioner has been convicted and sentenced as under:-

¶14

Offence u/s.	Sentence	Fine	Default sentence
279 IPC	Six months’ S.I.	Rs.500/-	15 Days’ additional SI
304-A IPC	Two years’ S.I.	Rs.1000/-	One Month Additional SI

(2 of 12)

[2024:RJ-JP:47948]

[CRLW-786/2024]

338 IPC	One Year’s SI	Rs.500/-	15 Days’ additional SI
337 IPC	Six months’ S.I.	Rs.500/-	15 Days’ additional SI

¶19

All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently

¶20

Briefly stated, the prosecution case as set up is that on 09.12.2011, complainant Ranveer Singh submitted a written report to ASI Mohanlal, PS Dadiya at S.K. Hospital, Sikar inter alia alleging that on 09.12.2011, he along with his family members were going to Jaipur from Balwantpura in Innova Car No.RJ 18 UB 0050. The car was being driven by Shivkaran. His wife Rekha, aged 38 years, his daughter Heena @ Vaishali Kanwar, aged 15 years and his son Abhinandan, aged 12 years were also there in the car. It is alleged that driver (petitioner herein) of Video-Coach Bus No.RJ 19 PA 4237, while driving the bus in a rash and negligent manner, hit against their car due to which, his wife Rekha and children sustained serious injuries. They were taken to hospital where during treatment, his wife Smt. Rekha Kanwar and daughter Heena @ Vaishali expired.

¶21

On the basis of the above report, FIR No.322/2011 was registered at the Police Station Dadiya for offences under Sections 279, 337, 338 and 304A IPC and investigation was commenced. On completion of investigation, charge-sheet was filed in the court concerned against the present petitioner for offences punishable under Sections 279, 337, 338 and 304A IPC where charges were framed against the accused petitioner. He pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

¶22

During course of trial, the prosecution examined as many as 12 witnesses in support of its case and exhibited 16 documents. The accused petitioner was questioned under Section 313 Cr.P.C.

[2024:RJ-JP:47948]

[CRLW-786/2024]

(3 of 12)

wherein, he denied the prosecution evidence and claimed himself to be innocent. However, he did not produce any evidence in defence.

¶27

After considering the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses and the material available on record, the learned trial court vide judgment dated 26.07.2019, convicted and sentenced the accused-petitioner, as mentioned above.

¶28

Aggrieved by the judgment of conviction and sentence dated 26.07.2019, the petitioner filed an appeal before learned Addl. Sessions Judge No.4, Sikar. However, during arguments before learned appellate court, counsel representing the petitioner herein did not challenge conviction of the accused petitioner recorded by the learned trial court and prayed for release of the petitioner on probation. Vide judgment dated 27.03.2024, the learned appellate court did not accept the prayer for grant of benefit of probation under the Probation of Offenders Act and while dismissing the appeal, affirmed the judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the learned trial court. At the same time, the petitioner was also directed to pay Rs.50,000/- as compensation under Section 357(A) of Cr.P.C. to be paid to injured Ranveer, Shivkaran and legal heirs of deceased Smt. Rekha Kanwar and Kumari Heena Kanwar. Hence this criminal writ petition.

¶29

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 sentence awarded by the Gram Nyaylaya to the period already undergone by him. He submits that the petitioner has been serving his sentence since 27.03.2024. It is also submitted that

[2024:RJ-JP:47948]

[CRLW-786/2024]

(4 of 12)

the father of the petitioner is 80 years old, who is suffering from paralysis and several other old aged health issues. Besides him, the petitioner has a wife and two children to look after. Presently, the petitioner is serving his sentence since the date of judgment i.e., 27.03.2024 and as such he has already served sentence of eight months. It is also submitted that petitioner has already suffered agony of protracted trial, spanning over a period of more than 13 years and remained incarcerated for eight months after passing of the judgment. It is also contended that vide judgment dated 27.03.2024, the appellate court has also imposed a cost of Rs.50,000/- upon the petitioner payable to the injured and LRs of the deceased. Besides this, the injured and the legal heirs of the deceased have also received compensation under MACT Claim case. Reliance has been placed on the judgment passed by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of George vs State of Kerala reported in 2024 Supreme 747. With these submissions, learned counsel for the petitioner prays that the sentence awarded to the petitioner may be reduced to the period already undergone by him and he may be released from prison forthwith.

¶34

On the other hand, learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the State and learned counsel for the complainant have vehemently opposed the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner. It is submitted that there is no illegality or infirmity in the impugned judgments whatsoever and, therefore, the same do not call for any interference by this Court. The prosecution was successful in providing its case beyond all reasonable doubt. The learned trial court as well as learned first

[2024:RJ-JP:47948]

[CRLW-786/2024]

(5 of 12)

appellate court, after taking into consideration the entire evidence and material available on record, gave concurrent finding of conviction, which do not call for any interference.

¶39

Learned counsel for the complainant seriously disputes submissions regarding reduction of sentence. He submits that due to rash and negligent driving of the petitioner, two persons lost their lives and the family of the complainant has totally disturbed. He submits that the mental agony and trauma, suffered by the complainant and his family members cannot be explained in words. He has placed reliance on the judgment passed by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Punjab vs Dil Bahadur : [2023] 3 SCR 766 wherein the judgment and order passed by the High Court interfering with the sentence imposed by the learned trial court confirmed by the first appellate court by showing undue sympathy to the accused was observed unsustainable and was quashed and set aside. He vehemently argues that it is not such a case in which any sympathy or leniency is to be shown to the petitioner because it would undermine the public confidence in the efficacy of law. He argues that appropriate punishment should be awarded for a crime which has been committed not only against the individual victim but also against the society to which both the criminal and the victim belong. He, however, admits that factum of compensation received in MACT case by the injured and legal heirs of deceased.

¶40

I have heard and considered the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. In this case, the fact of accident has been corroborated by the statements of witnesses and evidence on record. Both the courts

(6 of 12)

[2024:RJ-JP:47948]

[CRLW-786/2024]

below concurrently gave the finding that the petitioner was rash and negligent while driving the offending vehicle, which does not require any interference by this Court.

¶45

Since the present petition is not pressed on merits and after perusing the material, nothing is noticed which requires interference in the finding of guilt reached by the Gram Nyaylaya 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.

¶46

So far as the question of quantum of sentence is concerned, the petitioner has already suffered agony of protracted trial, spanning over a period of more than 13 years. Presently, he is serving sentence and has already incarcerated for eight months out of maximum sentence of two years. The petitioner is 50 years old and has a family to look after. The father of the petitioner is 80 years old, who is suffering from paralysis and several other old aged health issues. The petitioner has a wife and two unmarried son and daughter. Apart from that, learned first appellate court vide judgment dated 27.03.2024, directed the petitioner to pay Rs.50,000/- to be given to the injured and legal heirs of the deceased as compensation under Section 357(A) Cr.P.C. It has also been admitted by the learned counsel for the complainant that compensation has been awarded in favour of the victim’s family in MACT Claim Case.

¶47

Hon’ble Apex Court In the case of Puttaswamy vs. State of Karnataka & Anr. reported in 2009 (1) WLC (SC) (Cri.) 623), wherein the accused person was convicted for committing offence punishable under Secs. 279 and 304A IPC, reduced the

[2024:RJ-JP:47948]

[CRLW-786/2024]

(7 of 12)

sentence to the period already undergone and enhanced the fine from Rs. 2,000/- to Rs. 20,000/-, where the accused caused death of a 7 years old girl on account of his rash and negligent driving tractor.

¶52

Thus, after perusing the material available on record and taking into consideration the aforementioned aggravating and mitigating circumstance and 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, 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.

¶53

So far as the judgment passed in the case of State of Punjab vs Dil Bahadur, relied upon by learned counsel for the victim is concerned, I have gone through the same. All which have been observed by Hon’ble Apex Court in the said judgment is that the sentencing courts are expected to consider all relevant facts and circumstances bearing on the question of sentence and impose a sentence commensurate with the gravity of the offence. The Court must not only keep in view the rights of the victim of the crime but also the society at large while considering the imposition of appropriate punishment. By and large, in the said judgment, emphasis has been given to award appropriate and balanced sentence having regard to the nature of the offence and the manner in which it was executed or committed but it nowhere mandates that a convict must be awarded maximum punishment and appropriate and balanced sentence is equal to maximum

[2024:RJ-JP:47948]

[CRLW-786/2024]

(8 of 12)

punishment, provided under the law. In the peculiar facts and circumstances of that case, the Hon’ble Supreme Court allowed the appeal and restored the sentence imposed by the learned trial court but the facts of the present case are different. The cardinal principle of sentencing policy is that the sentence imposed on an offender should reflect the crime he has committed and it should be proportionate to the gravity of the offence.

¶58

The principle of proportionality in sentencing refers to the idea that the punishment for a crime should be proportional to the seriousness of the offence committed. This principle is rooted in the notion of fairness of justice and is a fundamental aspect of any legal system. In order to ensure that sentences are proportional, guidelines have been established by Hon’ble Apex Court and High Courts. Sentencing guidelines typically include a range of possible punishments for each type of offence, along with factors that should be considered when determining the appropriate sentence. These factors may include aggravating and mitigating circumstances, the offender’s personal circumstances, and any other relevant information. By providing clear and consistent guidance on how sentences should be determined, sentencing guidelines help to promote fairness and consistency in the legal system. They also help to ensure that sentences are proportionate to the severity of the crime, which is an important aspect of promoting public safety and deterrence.

¶59

It is important for the legal system to strive for consistency and transparency in sentencing and to guard against any bias or discrimination that may lead to unequal treatment of offenders. One way to do this is to establish clear guidelines and sentencing

[2024:RJ-JP:47948]

[CRLW-786/2024]

(9 of 12)

ranges for different offences, to ensure that punishments are proportional to the seriousness of the crime and are applied consistently across different cases. There can be various reasons why similar crimes may attract different punishments for offenders. One of the reasons could be differences in the severity of the crime, where even though two crimes might appear similar on the surface, there might be nuances in the details that affect the severity of the offence. Another reason could be differences in the criminal history of the offender or the jurisdiction where the crime was committed. Additionally, aggravating or mitigating circumstances, such as premeditation or self-defence, can also impact the severity of the crime and corresponding punishment. The circumstances surrounding a crime can affect the punishment as well. For example, if someone committed a crime under extreme duress or coercion, the court may take that into account when deciding on a sentence. However, the presence of aggravating or mitigating circumstances can also affect the severity of a crime and the corresponding punishment. Aggravating circumstances refer to any factors or circumstances that may increase the severity or culpability of a wrongdoing or offence. These circumstances may be considered in legal or disciplinary proceedings, such as in criminal trials or in academic misconduct cases. Examples of aggravating circumstances may include premeditation, use of a weapon or violence, involvement of minors or vulnerable individuals, or a history of similar offences. Mitigating circumstances refer to any factors or circumstances that may lessen the severity or culpability of a wrongdoing or offence. These circumstances may be considered in legal or disciplinary

(10 of 12)

[2024:RJ-JP:47948]

[CRLW-786/2024]

proceedings. Examples of mitigating circumstances may include mental illness, coercion, or duress, etc., self-defence, etc.

¶68

In the case of Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab reported in 1980(2) SCC 684, Hon’ble Apex Court held the principle that the punishment for a crime should be proportionate to the crime committed and the offender’s circumstances. This decision highlighted the need for the court to consider the nature of the crime, the motive, the method of commission, and the offender’s previous conduct, as well as the nature of the society and the public conscience. The Court emphasised that the sentence should not be excessively harsh or unduly lenient. In State of Maharashtra v. Sukhdev Singh reported in 1992(3) SCC 700 , Hon’ble Apex Court held that when the law prescribes a maximum sentence for a particular offence, it does not mandate that sentence in every case. The court emphasised that the Court must exercise discretion in determining the appropriate sentence based on the facts and circumstances of the case, including aggravating, and mitigating factors.

¶69

Sentencing policy was not only considered time to time in our Courts but in foreign Courts too. In State v. T. Makwanyane, Constitutional Court of The Republic of South Africa, is another example of the importance of considering the individual circumstances of each case when determining a sentence. In this case, the Court emphasised that the punishment should be tailored to the individual offender and the crime committed, rather than being a mandatory sentence prescribed by law.

¶70

Recently in George versus State of Kerala reported in 2024 Supreme 747 , Hon’ble Apex Court has held that for

[2024:RJ-JP:47948]

[CRLW-786/2024]

(11 of 12)

conviction under Section 304(A) and Section 338 of IPC, there is no minimum sentence prescribed but term of sentence may extend to two years. The sentence can also be limited to fine without any term of imprisonment. In that case, considering the facts and circumstances, while upholding conviction of appellant, the Hon’ble Apex Court deemed it appropriate to modify sentence to the period already undergone, in interest of justice.

¶75

Overall, these cases emphasise the importance of considering the individual circumstances of each case when determining an appropriate sentence. While imposing sentence, the courts must take into account the nature of the crime, the offender’s circumstances, aggravating and mitigating factors, and the principles of proportionality and fairness. 22. In backdrop of the discussion made hereinabove; looking to the facts & circumstances of the present case & considering the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner, the writ petition is partly allowed and while maintaining the conviction of the petitioner for offences punishable under Sections 279, 337, 338 and 304A IPC, the substantive sentence of imprisonment awarded to the petitioner by the learned trial court and affirmed by the learned appellate court is reduced to the period already undergone by him.

¶76

Insofar as the direction passed by learned appellate court upon the petitioner for making payment of Rs.50,000/- as compensation under Section 357 (A) Cr.P.C. is concerned, no interference is called for by this Court as same has not been challenged by counsel for the petitioner. Rather, it has been argued as one of the ground (mitigating circumstance) to reduce

[2024:RJ-JP:47948]

[CRLW-786/2024]

(12 of 12)

sentence to the period already undergone by him. Apart from modification/reduction in substantive sentence, this Court is not inclined to interfere/modify in the orders impugned. The petitioner is directed to pay fine amount, awarded by the learned trial court. If the petitioner fails to pay fine amount, he shall undergo default sentence, passed by the learned trial court in default of payment of fine. The fine amount and compensation shall be recovered in terms of Section 461 BNSS by the concerned District Collector as a land revenue. He is in jail. He shall be released from prison forthwith, if not wanted in any other case.

¶81

However, keeping in view the provisions of Section 437-A Cr.P.C., the accused petitioner is directed to furnish a personal bond in the sum of Rs.40,000/- and a surety bond in the like amount before the learned trial court, which shall be effective for a period of six months to the effect that in the event of filing of a Special Leave Petition against the present judgment on receipt of notice thereof, the petitioner shall appear before the Supreme Court.

¶82

The record of trial Court as well as appellate court be sent back forthwith.

¶83

(ANIL KUMAR UPMAN),J

¶84

LALIT MOHAN /752

Sarjeet S/O Balaram, v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sarjeet S/O Balaram, 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

Yuvraj @ Raj Kashyap S/O Shri Pramod Kashyap Vs State of Rajasthan

Mohammad Sharukh S/O Mohammad Farukh Vs State of Rajasthan

Uchchhaw Kanwar W/O Magan Singh Vs State of Rajasthan

Bhupendra Singh @ Tinku S/O Kamal Singh Vs State of Rajasthan

Shankarlal S/O Admal Vs State of Rajasthan

Abrar Hussain Khilji @ Neeraj Kumar Choudhary S/O Abdul Karim Vs State of Rajasthan