Abdul Gani vs State of Rajasthan - 2023 Supreme(Raj) 2105

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2023 Supreme(Raj) 2105

IN THE HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN
Farjand Ali, J.
Abdul Gani - Petitioner
Versus
The State of Rajasthan – Respondent
S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 449 of 2002
Decided On : 08-08-2023

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Mr. Shambhoo Singh.
For the Respondent: Mr. Anees Bhurat, P.P.

Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code - Sections 304-A, 337, 338 - Offenses related to causing death and injury due to negligent driving - Conviction and sentence for causing death by negligence and injuries affirmed, but sentence modified to time already served due to prolonged trial of 29 years - Judicial precedents considered for sentencing leniency. (Paras 3, 6, 7, 8)

Facts of the case:
Complainant reported an accident involving a negligent Jeep driver, resulting in one death and injuries to another individual. The Jeep driver was later identified as the petitioner. Charges were filed leading to conviction by the trial court and affirmation by the appellate court.

Findings of Court:
The petitioner suffered the agony of a prolonged trial over 29 years and had no prior criminal record, warranting leniency in sentencing.

Issues: The primary issue was whether to maintain the conviction while considering the sentence's reduction based on the petitioner’s circumstances, including age and lack of prior offenses.

Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the importance of a speedy trial and its effect on justice, citing relevant Supreme Court cases to support a reduction in sentence given the petitioner’s unblemished record and lengthy legal ordeal.

Result: The quantum of sentence is modified to the time already undergone by the petitioner, with the conviction affirmed.

Table of Content
1. circumstances of the road accident and resultant injuries. (Para 2)
2. summary of trial procedure and evidence. (Para 3)
3. petitioner's plea for leniency. (Para 4)
4. prosecutor's acknowledgment of petitioner's lack of criminal record. (Para 5 , 7)
5. affirmation of conviction but no interference. (Para 6)
6. modification of sentencing reflects judicial leniency. (Para 8)
7. concluding orders of the court. (Para 9 , 10)

ORDER :

Farjand Ali, J.

By way of filing the instant Criminal Revision Petition challenge has been made to the judgement dated 11.06.2002 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, No.1, Udaipur in Criminal appeal No.15/2001, whereby the learned appellate court affirmed the judgement of conviction and order of sentence dated 03.11.2000 passed by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mawali, District Udaipur in Criminal Regular Case No.65/1994; whereby the petitioner has been convicted and sentenced as under :-

Offence for which convicted	Sentence, fine and default sentence
Section 304-A of the IPC	One year's rigorous imprisonment along with a fine of Rs.1, 000/- and in default of payment of fine, further to undergo simple imprisonment of one month.
Section 338 of the IPC	Six months' rigorous imprisonment along with a fine of Rs.500/- and in default of payment of fine, further to undergo simple imprisonment of fifteen days
Section 337 of the IPC	Three months' rigorous imprisonment along with a fine of Rs.500/- and in default of payment of fine, further to undergo simple imprisonment of seven days

2. Bereft of elaborate details, facts relevant and essential for disposal of the instant criminal revision are that on 24.02.1994, complainant Chhagan Lal submitted a written report (Ex.P/1) to the SHO, Police Station Dabok to the effect that he and Ramchandra, L.C., reached Bhutpura at 10.30 a.m. for patrolling and compliance and were standing there. At that time, they saw a Jeep bearing registration No.RSL 9972 coming from towards Udaipur, which was being driven rashly and negligently and while overtaking, it hit a motorcycle, due to which the person sitting behind fell down and died due to head injury, while the person driving the motorcycle suffered injuries on right hand and leg and fracture. The deceased was Mansoor Khan and the injured was Rameshwar Lal. The Jeep driver told his name to be Abdul Gani resident of Aayad. Jeep owner left the spot. The injured was sent to hospital and the dead body was kept in mortuary. On the basis of the aforesaid report, FIR No.30/1994 was registered and after usual investigation, a charge-sheet was filed against the present petitioner.

3. The Learned Magistrate framed charges against the petitioner for the offences under Sections 279 , 337, 338 and 304- A of the IPC and upon denial of guilt by him, commenced the trial. During the course of trial, the prosecution in order to prove the offences, examined as many as 9 witnesses and exhibited 14 documents. The accused, upon being confronted with the prosecution allegations, in his statement under Section 313 CrPC, denied the allegations and submitted that the accident was not caused due to his mistake. No evidence was adduced in defence. Then, after hearing the learned Public Prosecutor and the learned Defence Counsel and upon meticulous appreciation of the evidence, learned trial court convicted the accused for offences under Sections 304-A, 337 and 338 of the IPC vide judgement dated 03.11.2000. Aggrieved by the judgement of conviction, he preferred an appeal, which was dismissed by the learned appellate court vide judgement dated 11.06.2002 affirming the judgement passed by the trial court. Hence, this revision petition is filed before this court.

4. After arguing the case on merits to some extent, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that he will not assail conviction of the petitioner and confines his arguments to the al

Click Here to Read the rest of this document