Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN
Pushpendra Singh Bhati, J.
Gaje Singh - Appellant
Versus
State Of Rajasthan - Respondent
Criminal Revision Petition No. 1164 of 2019
Decided On : 13-09-2019
CRIMINAL LAW - RASH AND NEGLIGENT DRIVING - SECTIONS 279, 304A IPC - REDUCTION OF SENTENCE - COMPROMISE BETWEEN PARTIES - SENTENCE REDUCED TO PERIOD ALREADY UNDERGONE.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner was convicted and sentenced for rash and negligent driving resulting in the death of two persons. He appealed against the conviction and sentence, but the appellate court partly allowed the appeal, acquitting him of the offences under Sections 337 and 338 IPC due to a compromise between the parties. However, the conviction and sentence under Sections 279 and 304A IPC were upheld.
Finding of the Court:
The court noted that the petitioner had already undergone 20 days of the sentence and had no criminal antecedents. Considering the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, including the compromise between the parties, the court found that the ends of justice would be met by reducing the sentence to the period already undergone.
Issues: Whether the sentence imposed on the petitioner for rash and negligent driving resulting in death could be reduced considering the compromise between the parties and the period of sentence already undergone.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the judgment in Dharmendra Kumar vs. State of Rajasthan, where the sentence of the petitioner was reduced to the period already undergone considering the nature of the allegation, the petitioner's lack of criminal antecedents, and the long period since the incident.
Final Decision: The court allowed the revision petition and reduced the sentence of the petitioner to the period already undergone. The petitioner was ordered to be released forthwith if not required in any other case.
JUDGMENT
Pushpendra Singh Bhati, J - The petitioner has filed the present revision claiming the following relief :-
"It is, therefore, most humbly and respectfully prayed that this revision petition may kindly be allowed and impugned judgment and order dated 21.08.2019 passed by learned Addl. District and Sessions Judge No. 2, Nagaur, in Criminal Appeal No. 278/1 (49/08) (76/14) and judgment dated 08/09/2008 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, Nagaur, whereby petitioner-accused were convicted for the offences U/Ss. 279, 337, 304-A of IPC, may kindly be quashed and set aside and petitioner-accused may kindly be acquitted accordingly."
2. Brief facts of the case are that a report was filed at P.S. Sri Balaji on 15.6.2003 stating inter alia that on 14.6.2003 a tractor carrying water tanker owned by Karan Singh was going from Rohini to Unthwalia and it was driven by the present petitioner Gaje Singh. The petitioner stopped the tractor and allowed the complainant's brother Sohan Lal, Hajari Ram, Haru Ram, Nimba Ram, Surja Ram etc. to sit on the tractor. It is alleged that the tractor driver - petitioner was driving the tractor in a rash and negligent manner and thereby resulted in separation of water tanker from tractor, as a result whereof Hajari Ram and Sohan Lal expired. FIR No.59/2004 was registered for the offence under Sections 279, 337, 338 and 304A IPC. The police after investigation filed charge-sheet for the aforesaid offences. The learned trial Court framed charges against the petitioner who denied the same and claimed trial. After hearing the arguments, the learned trial Court vide judgment dated 8.9.2008 convicted and sentenced the petitioner as below :-
| Section 279 IPC | 6 months S.I. and a fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default of fine, to further undergo 1 months S.I. |
| Section 337 IPC | 6 months S.I. and a fine of Rs.500/-, in default of fine, to further undergo 1 months S.I. |
| Section 338 IPC | 1 years S.I. and a fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default of fine, to further undergo 2 months S.I. |
| Section 304A IPC | 2 years S.I. and a fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default of fine, to further undergo 2 months S.I. |
| All the sentences were directed to run concurrently. | |
3. Against his conviction and sentence, the petitioner filed appeal before the learned Additional Sessions Judge No.2, Nagaur which was partly allowed vide judgment dated 21.8.2019 acquitting the petitioner from the offence under Sections 337 and 338 IPC on account of the parties having entered into a compromise. However, the appeal against conviction and sentence imposed under Section 279, 337 and 304A IPC was rejected.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner and the respondent no.2 jointly submit that since the issue in dispute was only a pure accident, therefore, the parties have entered into a compromise.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he is not challenging the conviction part of the judgment of the Court below but looking to the nature of allegation and that the petitioner has undergone a sentence of about 20 days and does not have any criminal antecedents, the sentence awarded to the petitioner may be reduced to the period already undergone. In this regard, he relies upon the judgment of this Court in Dharmendra Kumar vs. State of Rajasthan,2014 1 CrLR 388,(Raj.) which reads as under :-
"This revision has been filed by the petitioner against the judgment dated 24.9.2001 passed by Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Cases, Sawai Madhopur in Criminal Appeal No. 57/2001, whereby he dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner and affirmed the judgment dated 15.5.2001 passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sawai Madhopur in Criminal Case No. 388/1997, convicting the petitioner for the offence under Section 304 A IPC and sentencing him to undergo 1 1/2 years RI with fine of Rs. 2000/-; in default of payment of fine
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
