Disposed¶48

Khurshid Khan v. State

Rajasthan HC8 Jan 2025CRLR/679/2006

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Khurshid Khan v. State of Rajasthan; CRLR 679/2006; Rajasthan HC Jaipur; Justice Bhuwan Goyal; 08.01.2025; revision under Sections 397/401 CrPC; conviction under Sections 279 & 304-A IPC affirmed; sentence reduced to period already undergone; rash and negligent driving causing death; protracted trial over 25 years; young offender aged 21 at incident; about three and a half months custody; no previous conviction; Alister Anthony Pareira (2012) 2 SCC 648; Haripada Das (1998) 9 SCC 678; bail bonds discharged; ends of justice; sentencing discretion; deterrence and correction.

What did the court decide?

Conviction under Sections 279 & 304A IPC affirmed; sentence of imprisonment reduced to the period already undergone; accused-petitioner on bail need not surrender and bail bonds discharged; revision petition disposed of with modification in the order of sentence.

Khurshid Khan Vs State — Rajasthan HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶48

Issue for consideration

Whether the judgments of conviction passed by the courts below warrant interference in this revision petition. +1 more

¶19

Court's answer

The Court declined to interfere with the finding of guilt: since the revision against conviction was not pressed on merits and nothing on record required interference, the judgments of the courts below qua conviction are maintained.

¶30

Ratio / Principle

The judgments dated 21.06.2006 and 19.05.2005 passed by both the courts below qua conviction of the accused-petitioner for the offences under Sections 279 & 304A IPC are affirmed.

¶43

Key takeaways

Sending the accused-petitioner to jail at this stage would cause suffering to his family and no fruitful purpose would be served thereby.ratio¶42
The quantum of sentence for the offences under Sections 279 & 304A IPC awarded by the trial court and affirmed by the appellate court is modified and reduced to the period already undergone, which is sufficient and justifiable to serve the interest of justice; the accused-petitioner, who is on bail, need not surrender and his bail bonds are discharged.ratio¶47

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Rajasthan High Court (Jaipur Bench), single Judge (Bhuwan Goyal, J.), 08.01.2025, in S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 679/2006 under Sections 397/401 CrPC by Khurshid Khan: conviction under Sections 279 & 304-A IPC (FIR 602/99, PS Kotwali Alwar, incident 21.10.1999; trial court judgment 19.05.2005; appellate court judgment 21.06.2006 in Criminal Appeal No. 36/2005) affirmed, challenge to conviction not pressed on merits. On sentence, having regard to the accused being 21 years old at the time of the incident, protracted trial spanning over 25 years, incarceration of about three and a half months, absence of previous conviction, and the principles in Alister Anthony Pareira v. State of Maharashtra (2012) 2 SCC 648 and Haripada Das v. State of W.B. (1998) 9 SCC 678, the substantive sentence was reduced to the period already undergone; bail bonds discharged; revision petition disposed of.

¶1

[2025:RJ-JP:1209]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶3

S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 679/2006

¶4

Khurshid Khan son of Shri Karim Khan, resident of Nangal Palkhadi, Police Station Malakheda, District Alwar(Rajasthan) (At Present In District Jail Alwar)

¶5

----Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

The State of Rajasthan, through P.P.

¶8

----Respondent

¶9

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Ran Singh For Respondent(s) : Mr. Jai Prakash Tiwari, PP

¶10

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BHUWAN GOYAL Judgement

¶11

08/01/2025

¶12

The present revision petition under Section 397 read with Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, has been filed by the accused-petitioner-Khurshid Khan against Judgment and Order dated 21.06.2006 passed by Additional Sessions Judge No.2, Alwar (hereinafter referred to as "appellate court") in Criminal Appeal No. 36/2005 (Khurshid Khan vs. State of Rajasthan) vide which criminal appeal filed by the accused-petitioner against the Judgment and Order of Sentence dated 19.05.2005 passed by Judicial Magistrate No.2, Alwar (hereinafter referred to as "trial court") convicting and sentencing him for the offences under sections 279 & 304-A I.P.C, was dismissed. The sentence awarded to the petitioner is as under:-

¶13

offence	sentence	fine	sentence in
			default
u/s 279 IPC	6 Months S.I	Rs.500/-	15 days S.I.
u/s 304-A IPC	2years S.I	Rs. 1000/-	1 Month S.I
(All se	ntences were ord	ered to run concu	rrently)

(2 of 6)

[2025:RJ-JP:1209]

[CRLR-679/2006]

Facts of the case in short are that on the basis of a written report submitted by complainant- Ravikant Gupta (PW-1) with respect to an incident, which occurred on 21.10.1999, F.I.R. No. 602/99 was registered at Police Station Kotwali, Alwar for the offences under Sections 279 & 304-A of I.P.C. After conclusion of investigation, police submitted charge-sheet against accusedpetitioner for the offences under Sections 279 & 304A of I.P.C. The trial court framed charges for the aforesaid offences and trial was commenced. After conclusion of trial, the trial court passed judgment and order of sentence dated 19.05.2005 whereby accused-petitioner was convicted and sentenced for the offences under Sections 279 & 304A of I.P.C., as stated above. Aggrieved by judgment of conviction and sentence dated 19.05.2005, accused-petitioner preferred an appeal before the learned appellate court, which passed the Judgment & Order dated 21.06.2006 dismissing the appeal and affirming the judgment of the trial court. Hence, this criminal revision petition has been preferred by the accused-petitioner.

¶18

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

¶19

After arguing the matter on merits at some length, learned counsel for the accused-petitioner does not wish to press instant revision petition challenging judgments passed by the courts below qua conviction and prefers to make submissions on the point of sentence only.

¶20

Learned counsel for the accused-petitioner has submitted that incident in the present case took place way back in the year 1999 i.e. more than 25 years ago; accused-petitioner was 21

[2025:RJ-JP:1209]

[CRLR-679/2006]

(3 of 6)

years of age at the time of incident and now he is around 46 years old and facing agony of trial since last more than 25 years; accused-petitioner who is sole bread earner in the family, belongs to poor strata of society and remained in custody for a period of almost three and a half months and there is no previous conviction recorded against the accused-petitioner, therefore, he prays that ends of justice would meet if a lenient view is taken in the matter and sentence of imprisonment awarded to the accusedpetitioner is reduced to the period already undergone by him. 6. Learned counsel for the accused-petitioner has relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Chander Shekhar vs. State of Rajasthan (Criminal Appeal No. 4161/2024) decided on 04.10.2024 and the judgments rendered by a coordinate Bench of this Court in the cases of Shyamveer Singh vs. State of Rajasthan (S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 724/2003) decided on 15.05.2024, Smt. Sudesh Kumari vs. State of Rajasthan (S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 1047/2005) decided on 09.10.2024, Mahesh Bhargava vs. State of Rajasthan (S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 737/2005) decided on 06.11.2024, Pappu vs. State of Rajasthan (S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 538/2005) decided on 21.08.2024, Annu @ Anwar vs. State of Rajasthan (S.B. Criminal Writ Petition No. 333/2018) decided on 04.11.2024, Banna Ram vs. State of Rajasthan (S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 391 of 2006) decided on 08.07.2024, Heera Lal vs. State of Rajasthan (S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 733/2003) decided on

(4 of 6)

[2025:RJ-JP:1209]

[CRLR-679/2006]

14.02.2024 & Ram Karan vs. State of Rajasthan (S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 972 of 2006) decided on 08.07.2024.

¶29

Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor while opposing the revision petition, submits that looking to the overall facts and circumstances of the case and the well reasoned speaking orders passed by the courts below, sentence awarded by the trial court cannot be said to be disproportionate, therefore, no interference in sentence is warranted in this case.

¶30

I have considered the arguments advanced at the Bar and have gone through judgments passed by both the courts below and record of the case as also judgments cited in this case. 9. Since the revision petition against conviction of the accusedpetitioner is not pressed on merits and after perusing the record, nothing is noticed which requires interference in the finding of guilt reached by the courts below, this Court does not wish to interfere in the judgments passed by courts below qua conviction of the accused-petitioner. Accordingly, the judgments passed by the courts below qua conviction of the accused-petitioner are maintained.

¶31

As far as quantum of sentence is concerned, a perusal of record transpires that accused-petitioner, who was only 21 years young boy at the time of incident, has already suffered the agony of protracted trial, spanning over a period of more than 25 years and he remained incarcerated for some time after passing of the judgment, and no evidence regarding previous conviction of the accused-petitioner is produced on record.

(5 of 6)

[2025:RJ-JP:1209]

[CRLR-679/2006]

This Court is conscious of the judgments rendered in Alister

¶36

Anthony Pareira Vs. State of Maharashtra : (2012) 2 SCC 648 and Haripada Das Vs. State of W.B. : (1998) 9 SCC 678 , wherein, the Hon'ble Apex Court observed as under:-

¶37

Alister Anthony Pareira (Supra)

¶38

“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.”

¶39

Haripada Das (Supra)

¶40

“…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…”

¶41

After perusing judgments and orders impugned, considering

¶42

the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and the precedent law on the issue, this Court is of the opinion that if at this stage, accused-petitioner is sent behind bars, family of the petitioner will also suffer, therefore, no fruitful purpose would be served by sending him to jail now.

¶43

Consequently, the judgments dated 21.06.2006 and 19.05.2005 passed by both the courts below qua conviction of the accused-petitioner for the offences under Sections 279 & 304A of I.P.C. are affirmed but the quantum of sentence for the offences under sections 279 & 304A I.P.C, awarded to the accused-

(6 of 6)

[2025:RJ-JP:1209]

[CRLR-679/2006]

petitioner by the trial court and affirmed by the appellate court is modified and is reduced to the period already undergone by him, which would be sufficient and justifiable to serve interest of justice. The accused-petitioner is on bail. He need not to surrender. His bail bonds are discharged.

¶48

The revision petition stands disposed of with aforesaid modification in the order of sentence.

¶49

A copy of this order along with records be sent to the trial court forthwith.

¶50

(BHUWAN GOYAL),J

¶51

Anu /17

Khurshid Khan v. State

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Khurshid Khan v. State

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Jitendra @ Jeetu Son of Gajanand Vs State of Rajasthan

Dilip Son of Bainiram Vs State of Rajasthan

Yogesh S/O Ramsahay Vs State of Rajasthan

Akshay Vats S/O Shri Krishan Sharma Vs State of Rajasthan

Jai Prakash Vs State

Bhagwan Sahay Vs State of Rajasthan through Pp