Court upheld conviction for reckless driving but modified sentence based on humanitarian grounds considering age and time served.

Order

23/07/2025

1. By way of filing the instant criminal revision petition, a challenge has been made to the order dated 05.07.2005 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track), Balotra, District Barmer in Criminal Appeal No.02/2005 (Old No.19/2000) whereby the learned appellate Court dismissed the appeal filed against the judgment of conviction dated 16.05.2000 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Barmer, in Regular Criminal Case No.100/90 by which the learned trial Judge convicted and sentenced the petitioner as under:-

Offence Sentence Sec. 279 IPC 6 months’ RI Sec. 304A IPC 1 year RI

2. Both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently and the period spent in judicial custody shall be adjusted in the original imprisonment.

3. The gist of the prosecution story is that complainant submitted a written report before SHO, Police Station Baytu to the effect that on 23.06.1990, he was travelling from Barmer to Balotra in Bus bearing registration No. RNP-636, which was being driven by the present petitioner very recklessly. The bus hit a man who was riding a camel on the road and he sustained severe injuries. Upon the aforesaid report, an FIR was registered and after usual investigation, charge-sheet came to be submitted against the petitioner in the Court concerned.

4. The Learned Magistrate framed charge against the petitioner for offences under Sections 279 & 304A IPC and upon denial of guilt by the accused, commenced the trial. During the course of trial, as many as 10 witnesses were examined and certain documents were exhibited. Thereafter, an explanation was sought from the accused-petitioner under Section 313 Cr.P.C. for which he denied the same and then, after hearing the learned counsel for the accused petitioner and meticulous appreciation of the evidence, learned Trial Judge has convicted the accused for offence under Sections 279 & 304A vide judgment dated 16.05.2000 and sentenced him as mentioned above. Aggrieved by the judgment of conviction, he preferred an appeal before the learned Additional Sessions Court, which was dismissed vide judgment dated 05.07.2005. Both these judgments are under assail before this Court in the instant revision petition.

5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, at the outset submits that he does not dispute the finding of guilt and the judgment of conviction passed by the learned trial court and upheld by the learned appellate court, but at the same time, he implores that the incident took place in the year 1990. The appellant had remained in jail for about fifty four days after passing of the judgment by the appellate court. No other case has been reported against him. He hails from a very poor family and belongs to the weaker section of the society. He was 24 years old at the time of incident, now, he is aged about 59 years and has been facing trial since the year 1990 and he has languished in jail for some time, therefore, a lenient view may be taken in reducing his sentence.

6. Learned public prosecutor though opposed the submissions made on behalf of the petitioner but does not refute the fact that the petitioner has remained behind the bars for about fifty four days and except the present one no other case has been registered against him.

7. Since the revision petition against conviction is not pressed and after perusing the material, nothing is noticed which requires interference in the finding of guilt reached by learned trial court, this court does not wish to interfere in the judgment of conviction.

Accordingly, the judgment of conviction is maintained.

8. As far as the question of sentence is concerned, the petitioner remained in jail for some time and he has