HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No.909/2005 v. The State of Rajasthan through its public procesutor

Judgment

1. The instant revision petition has been preferred by the petitioner challenging the judgment dated 12.09.2005 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Jhunjhunu, (hereinafter referred to as "the Appellate Court") in Criminal Appeal No.68/2004 (Old No.35/2004) whereby the Appellate Court, while dismissing the petitioner's appeal and upheld the judgment dated 07.06.2004 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jhunjhunu (hereinafter referred to as "the Trial Court") in Criminal Case No.12/2000 whereby the Trial Court has convicted and sentenced the petitioner as under:-

1. For offence under Section 279 I.P.C.- One month Rigorous Imprisonment and a fine of Rs.500/-, and in default of payment of fine to further undergo 15 days Simple Imprisonment. [2025:RJ-JP:1228] (2 of 8) [CRLR-909/2005]

2. For offence under Section 304-A I.P.C.- One year Rigorous Imprisonment and a fine of Rs.5,000/-, and in default of payment of fine to further undergo three months' Simple Imprisonment. Both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently.

2. Brief facts of the case are that on 03.09.1999, the complainant-Suresh Kumar Saini lodged a report F.I.R. No.320/1999 at Police Station Kotwali, District Jhujhunu under Sections 279 & 337 I.P.C. mentioned therein that at around 06:00PM in the evening, his brother deceased-Rameshwar was coming from the field, but on the way, the driver of the vehicle driving the same in a rash and negligent manner collided the vehicle in question with the deceased, due to which he has sustained grievous injuries and he died on the spot.

3. After investigation, charge-sheet was submitted against the petitioner under Sections 279, 337 & 304-A I.P.C. for the said offences before the Court of Judicial Magistrate, where charges were framed against him for the above offence. The petitioner denied charges and claimed Trial.

4. During course of Trial, the prosecution examined as many as 7 witnesses were recorded and 1 document was exhibited, in support of its case. Thereafter, the statement of the petitioner was taken under Section 313 Cr.P.C. wherein he denied his participation in the accident and submitted that he has been falsely booked in this case and in defence, no evidence was produced. [2025:RJ-JP:1228] (3 of 8) [CRLR-909/2005]

Upon conclusion of the Trial Court, learned Trial Judge vide judgment dated 07.06.2004 convicted and sentenced the petitioner, as stated above.

6. Being aggrieved by the conviction and sentence, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Appellate Court which came to be dismissed vide judgment dated 12.09.2005. Hence, this petition, against the judgment of conviction and sentence before this Court.

7. At the threshold, learned counsel for the accused-petitioner submits that he does not want to challenge the findings of conviction, but looking to the fact that the occurrence is related to the year 1999 and out of the total sentence of one year, the petitioner has already undergone a sentence of more than one month. Therefore, it is prayed that sentence awarded to the petitioner for the aforesaid offences be reduced to the period already undergone by him.

8. In support of his contention, he has placed reliance upon the following judgments, passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court :-

1. George Vs. State of Kerala (SLP (Crl.) No.11041 of 2024) decided on 03.09.2024.

2. Vinod Kumar Vs. The State of Rajasthan (SLP (Crl.) No.6152/2024) decided on 21.10.2024.

3. Chander Shekhar Vs. State of Rajasthan (Criminal Appeal No.4161/2024) decided on 04.10.2024.

4. Muthupandi Vs. State through the Inspector of Police (Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No.16486 of 2023) decided on 10.12.2024. [2025:RJ-JP:1228] (4 of 8) [CRLR-909/2005]

9. On the other hand, learned Public Prosecutor opposed the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and submitted that there is neither any occasion to interfere with the sentence awarded to the accused-petitioner nor any compassion or sympathy is called for in the present case.

10. Heard the arguments of both the sides and perused the material available on the record.

11. This fact is not in dispute that the incident has occurred in the year 1999 and the petitioner has so far undergone a sentence of one and half months out of the total sentence of one year and also suffered the agony and trauma of protracted Trial.

12. Looking to the fact that the age of the petitioner is 55 years, this Court deems it just and proper to reduce the sentence of the petitioner to the period already undergone by him. Now, the question remains for consideration of this Court is whether the family members/ legal representatives of the deceased are entitled to get compensation.

13. The Hon'ble Apex Court has dealt with the identical situations recently in the following cases:- 13A. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of George Vs. State of Kerala, while reducing the sentence of the accused for the same offences, observed as under in paras 12 to 15, as follows:- "12. A three-Judges Bench of this Court, on 30.06.2021, while considering the case of negligent driving by a bus driver in Surendran v. Sub-Inspector of Police, 2021 17 SCC 799, ordered for substitution of sentence, for the conviction under Sections 279 and 338 of the IPC, to fine only. The Court took into account that the accident had happened over 26 years ago and the concerned accused was on bail throughout the trial. [2025:RJ-JP:1228] (5 of 8) [CRLR-909/2005]

13. In the present case, the appellant was arrested on 10.05.2024 and by now, he has been in custody for about 117 days. Considering the circumstances, while upholding the conviction of the appellant, we deem it appropriate to modify the sentence to the period already undergone, in the interest of justice. Ordered accordingly.

14. Insofar as the direction in the impugned judgment, for payment of compensation of Rs.2.5 lakhs, the learned counsel would point out that the appellant is a poor person and is now aged around 69 years. He has several medical issues and therefore the compensation sum be either waived or be reduced.

15. In the peculiar facts of this case, while upholding the conviction, we reduce the compensation payable by the appellant to Rs.50,000/-. This amount should be deposited before the trial court within 60 days of the release of the appellant. The trial court should then arrange for remitting the amount to the victim’s family." 13B. Similarly, in the case of Muthupandi Vs. State through the Inspector of Police (supra), while reducing the sentence of the accused, the Hon'ble Apex Court has observed as under in paras 8 & 10, as follows:- “8. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and carefully perusing the records of the case, we see no reason to interfere with the conviction under Sections 279 and 304(A) of IPC imposed by the courts below.

9. However, we are inclined to allow the appeal partly on the ground of sentence. The incident is of the year 2013. Eleven years have elapsed since the incident occurred. The appellant has been on bail throughout. It also emerges from the case of the prosecution that the witnesses and the deceased were negotiating about 70 cattle on the road. While we do not absolve the appellant from the act of rash and negligent driving, we certainly want to keep the above factors in mind while considering the sentence. The appellant has deposited a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- to be payable to the mother of the deceased who is the sole legal heir. Though served, she is not appearing. [2025:RJ-JP:1228] (6 of 8) [CRLR-909/2005]

10. In view of the special facts of this case, while upholding the conviction, we set aside the sentence of three months simple imprisonment. We also set aside the fine of Rs.1,000/- for the offence under Section 279 of IPC as well as fine of Rs. 5,000/- for the offence under Section 304(A) of IPC. Instead, while maintaining the conviction, we order that the amount of Rs.1,00,000/- deposited in this Court along with interest be paid to Mrs. Ponnalaghu W/o Vellaisamy (mother of the deceased), Ramar Kovil Street, M. Vadipatti Post Nilaikottai Taluk, Dindigul, District 624211. This is on account of the loss suffered by her on account of the act of the appellant and we pass this order in exercise of powers under Section 357(3) of the Cr.P.C." 13C. Similarly, in the case of Vinod Kumar (supra), the Hon'ble Apex Court, while reducing the sentence of the accused, has observed in paragraphs 4 to 6, as follows:- “4. We have been informed by the learned counsel for the appellant that he has already undergone approximately one and a half month in custody.

5. Considering the fact that the incident is of the year 1990 and that the appellant had also, being the driver of the vehicle, substantially suffered injuries, we feel that the sentence awarded be reduced to the sentence already undergone, subject to the condition that the fine amount be increased to Rs. 75,000/- (Rupees Seventy Five Thousand only) out of which Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand only) be paid to the legal heirs of each of the three deceased.

6. The fine amount be deposited within a period of two months before the concerned Trial Court which will disburse the amount as directed above." 13D. Even in the case of Chander Shekhar (Supra), the sentence of the accused was reduced to the period already undergone by him while directing him to pay the compensation. It was held in paras 4 to 7 as follows:- “4. We take notice of the fact that the accident occurred on 20th August, 1997. The appellant herein was driving a Jeep. 6 to 7 passengers were sitting in the Jeep. At around 12 O’clock in the night, the jeep [2025:RJ-JP:1228] (7 of 8) [CRLR-909/2005] rammed into a stationary truck. In the accident, some of the passengers got injured and two succumbed to the injuries.

5. It is difficult for this Court to look into the evidence on record, having regard to the concurrent findings of three courts holding the appellant guilty of rash and negligent driving.

6. However, we are of the view that the sentence imposed by the Trial Court deserves to be reduced to the period already undergone. We say so because out of two years, he has already undergone six months of rigorous imprisonment.

7. In such circumstances referred to above, while maintaining the conviction of the appellant for the offences enumerated above, we reduce the sentence to the period already undergone. We have granted this indulgence keeping in mind that almost 27 years have elapsed since the time the accident occurred.”

14. Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case, while upholding the conviction, this Court reduces the sentence of the petitioner to the sentence already undergone by him, however, this Court deems it just and proper to direct the petitioner to deposit a compensation amount of Rs.25,000/- with the Trial Court within a period of six weeks from today. In case, the petitioner fails to deposit the amount of compensation within the above stipulated time, he would suffer the sentence as awarded by the Trial Court. The Trial Court would take necessary steps to ensure the compliance of the judgment passed by this Court.

15. Upon deposition of the aforesaid amount of compensation, the Trial Court is directed to disburse the said amount to the legal representatives of the deceased, as per law. [2025:RJ-JP:1228] (8 of 8) [CRLR-909/2005]

16. The instant petition stands disposed of with the above modification in the impugned judgment.

17. In view of the provisions of Section 483 BNSS, the accused- appellants are directed to furnish a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- with two surety bonds of Rs.25,000/- each to the satisfaction of the Trial Court within a period of six weeks from today, with the stipulation that in the event of Special Leave to Appeal being submitted against this judgment or on grant of leave, the appellants on receipt of notice thereof, shall appear before the Hon’ble Supreme Court.

18. Office is directed to return the record of the Trial Court for necessary compliance of the judgment passed by this Court. (ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J Aayush Sharma /7