Manoj Kumar Vs State

The present revision petition under Section 397 read with Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed by the accused-petitioner – Manoj Kumar against the Judgment and Order dated 04.07.2007 passed by Additional Sessions Judge (Fast-track), Behror, District Alwar (Raj.) (hereinafter referred to as "appellate court") in Criminal Appeal No. 15/2007(30/2002) (Manoj Kumar vs. State of Rajasthan) vide which criminal appeal filed by the accused-petitioner has been dismissed and the Judgment and Order dated 11.07.2002 passed by Judicial Magistrate, Behror, Alwar (hereinafter referred to as "trial court") in Criminal Case no. 21/99 (State of Rajasthan vs. Manoj Kumar) convicting and sentencing the petitioner for the offence under Sections 279 & 304-A of I.P.C. as indicated below has been affirmed.

¶14

(2 of 6)

¶15

[2026:RJ-JP:1177]

¶16

[CRLR-954/2007]

¶17

offence	sentence	fine	sentence	in
			default payment of	on fine
u/s 279 IPC	To undergo 6 months S.I	Rs. 1000/-	To further undergo 1 month's S.I
u/s 304-A IPC	To undergo 2 years S.I	Rs. 5000/-	To further undergo 2 months' S.I

¶18

(Both sentences were ordered to run concurrently)

¶19

Facts of the case in short are that on 19.01.1999, complainant Jai Prakash (P.W. 2) submitted a written report (Ex P.2) in Police Station Shahjahanpur, to the effect that in the night of 18-19.01.1999, his brother Surjeet Singh along with Surendra, Charan Singh & Bablu were returning from Village Rayliwas to village Phauladpur in a jeep bearing registration no. RJ 02 C 891. On the way, around 3.00 AM, when the Jeep reached Shahjahanpur, the driver drove the jeep rashly & negligently and overturned the said jeep, due to which his brother Surjeet Singh died on the spot. On the basis of said report, the Police registered FIR No. 06/1999 for the offence under Sections 279 & 304-A IPC and investigation was commenced. After completing the investigation, the police submitted the challan against accusedpetitioner for the offence under Sections 279 & 304-A of IPC before the concerned court. Substance of allegations were read over to the accused-petitioner, who denied the same and claimed for trial. After conclusion of trial, the trial court passed judgment and order dated 11.07.2002 convicting and sentencing the

(3 of 6)

[2026:RJ-JP:1177]

[CRLR-954/2007]

accused-petitioner for the offence under Sections 279 & 304-A IPC as indicated above. Thereafter, the petitioner filed an appeal and the appellate court vide its judgment dated 04.07.2007 dismissed the appeal and affirmed the judgment dated 11.07.2002 passed by the trial court. Hence, this criminal revision petition has been preferred by the accused-petitioner.

¶24

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

¶25

After arguing the matter on merits at some length, learned counsel for the accused-petitioner does not want 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.

¶26

Learned counsel for the accused-petitioner has submitted that incident in the present case took place way back in the year 1999 i.e. around 27 years ago; accused-petitioner was 23 years of age at the time of incident and now he is around 50 years old and facing agony of trial for the past about 27 years; accusedpetitioner who is sole bread earner in the family, belongs to poor strata of society and remained in police and judicial custody for a period of about 64 days 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 accused-petitioner is reduced to the period already undergone by him.

¶27

Learned counsel for the accused-petitioner has relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Chander Shekhar vs.

[CRLR-954/2007]

[2026:RJ-JP:1177]

(4 of 6)

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

¶32

Per contra, learned Government Advocate 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 and affirmed by the appellate court cannot be said to be disproportionate, therefore, no interference in sentence is warranted in this case.

[2026:RJ-JP:1177]

[CRLR-954/2007]

(5 of 6)

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.

¶37

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.

¶38

As far as quantum of sentence is concerned, after perusing judgments and orders impugned, considering the submissions of learned counsel for the parties; precedent law on the issue; accused-petitioner, who was only 23 years of age at the time of incident, has already suffered the agony of protracted trial, spanning over a period of around 27 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, this Court is of the opinion that if at this stage, he is sent behind bars, it will result into reviving old enmity and that family of the petitioner will also suffer, therefore, no fruitful purpose would be served by sending him to jail now. 11. This Court is conscious of the judgments rendered in Alister

¶39

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:-

[2026:RJ-JP:1177]

[CRLR-954/2007]

(6 of 6)

Alister Anthony Pareira (Supra)

¶44

“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.”

¶45

Haripada Das (Supra)

¶46

“…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…”

¶47

Consequently, the judgments dated 04.07.2007 and 11.07.2002 passed by both the courts below qua conviction of the accused-petitioner for the offence under Sections 279 & 304-A of I.P.C. are affirmed but the quantum of sentence awarded to the accused-petitioner by the trial court and affirmed by the appellate court 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 be cancelled.

¶48

The revision petition stands disposed of accordingly.

¶49

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

¶50

(BHUWAN GOYAL),J

¶51

Anu/76

Manoj Kumar v. State

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Manoj Kumar 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

Balvindra Singh S/O Shri Ajab Singh Vs State of Rajasthan

Lalit Kumar S/O Late Shri Babulal, Vs State of Rajasthan

Indraj Meena @ Inder S/O Gangasahai, Vs State of Rajasthan

Mahendra Kumar Meena S/O Radheshyam Meena Vs State of Rajasthan

Jasveer Singh @ Viri S/O Budhprakash Vs State of Rajasthan

Mukesh Kumar Gurjar S/O Shishupalgurjar Vs State of Rajasthan