[2025:RJ-JP:47701] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Writ Petition No. 275/2018 Sandeep S/o Banwari Lal, R/o Gungara Police Station Dadia, District Sikar, Raj., Through Brother Shishram S/o Banwari Lal Jogi, R/o Gungara Police Station Dadia, District Sikar. Petitioner At Present Confined At District Jail, Sikar. ----Accused-Petitioner Versus State Of Rajasthan Through PP ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Ripu Daman Singh Naruka, Adv. For Respondent(s) : Mr. M.S. Shekhawat, PP HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR UPMAN Order 25/11/2025 1. By way of this criminal writ petition, the convict-petitioner has challenged the judgment dated 07.03.2018 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge No.4, Sikar in Regular Criminal Appeal No.12/2015 (B.T. No.182/2016) (CIS No.150/2015), whereby the learned Appellate Court dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner against the judgment of conviction and sentence dated 07.08.2015 passed by learned Gram Nyayalaya, Kudali, District Sikar in Regular Criminal Case No.50/2010 (B.T. No.182/2010) and affirmed the same. Vide judgment dated 07.08.2015, the learned Gram Nyayalaya has convicted and sentenced the petitioner as under:- Offence u/s. Sentence Fine Default sentence 279 IPC Six months’ S.I. - - 304-A IPC Two years’ S.I. - - 39/192 of MV Act - Rs.2000/- 15 days’ SI 66/192A of MV Act - Rs.2000/- 15 days’ SI All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently [2025:RJ-JP:47701] (2 of 6) [CRLW-275/2018] 2. Briefly stated, the prosecution case as set up is that on 17.02.2010, complainant Ram Niwas submitted a written report at Police Station Raghunathgarh, District Sikar stating therein that on 28.01.2010 at 7:40 AM one auto without number plate, which was registered in the name of one Ashok Jogi, was being driven by Sandeep. Due to rash and negligent driving by the auto driver, the said auto overturned near Piprali Panchayat Samiti, as a result of which, the passengers travelling in the said auto sustained severe injuries including Ramchandra (the brother of the complainant). Injured Ramchandra was immediately taken to Kalyan Hospital, Sikar, from where he was referred higher centre at SMS Hospital, Jaipur, where he died during treatment. 3. On the basis of the above report, FIR No.24/2010 was registered at Police Station Raghunathgarh, District Sikar for offences under Sections 279 & 337 of IPC and investigation was commenced. On completion of investigation, charge-sheet was filed in the Court concerned against the petitioner for offences punishable under Sections 279 & 304A of IPC and Sections 39/192 & 66/192 of MV Act, where charges were framed against the accused petitioner. He pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. 4. During the course of trial, the prosecution examined as many as 9 witnesses in support of its case and exhibited 11 documents. The accused petitioner was questioned under Section 313 Cr.PC wherein, he denied the prosecution evidence and claimed himself to be innocent. However, he did not produce any evidence in defence. [2025:RJ-JP:47701] (3 of 6) [CRLW-275/2018] 5. After considering the testimony of prosecution witnesses and the material available on record, the learned Gram Nyayalaya vide judgment dated 07.08.2015, convicted and sentenced the accused-petitioner, as mentioned above. 6. Aggrieved by the judgment of conviction and sentence dated 07.08.2015, the petitioner filed an appeal before learned Addl. Sessions Judge No.4, Sikar, which came to be dismissed vide judgment dated 07.03.2018 by the learned appellate Court while affirming the judgment of the Gram Nyayalaya. Hence, this criminal writ petition. 7. At the threshold, learned counsel for the petitioner does not want to assail the conviction of the petitioner on merits and confines his arguments with the alternative prayer of reduction of sentence awarded by Gram Nyayalaya to the period already undergone by him as the occurrence relates back to year 2010 and the trial was concluded in the year 2015 and so far the petitioner has served the sentence of about 16 days, out of maximum sentence of two years. 8. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the prosecution has proved the case beyond reasonable doubt and the learned Gram Nyayalaya as well as the learned appellate Court have rightly recorded conviction of the accused petitioner, which need not be interfered with by this Court in exercise of criminal writ jurisdiction for the reason that there is no illegality or infirmity in the impugned judgment and orders of sentence. [2025:RJ-JP:47701] (4 of 6) [CRLW-275/2018] 9. I have heard and considered the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. In this case, the fact of accident has been corroborated by the statements of witnesses and evidence on record. Both the Courts below concurrently gave the finding that the petitioner was negligent while driving the offending vehicle, which does not require any interference by this Court. 10. Since the present petition is not pressed on merits and after perusing the material, nothing is noticed which requires interference in the finding of guilt reached by the Gram Nyayalaya and affirmed by the appellate Court, this Court does not wish to interfere in the judgment of conviction. Accordingly, the judgment of conviction is maintained. 11. So far as the question of quantum of sentence is concerned, the petitioner has already suffered agony of protracted trial, spanning over a period of about five years; the petitioner has already been incarcerated for about sixteen days out of maximum sentence of two years; presently the petitioner is 45 years old and has a family to look-after. 12. Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Puttaswamy vs. State of Karnataka & Anr. reported in 2009 (1) WLC (SC) (Cri.) 623), wherein the accused person was convicted for committing offences punishable under Sections 279 and 304A IPC, reduced the sentence to the period already undergone and enhanced the fine from Rs. 2,000/- to Rs. 20,000/-, where the accused caused [2025:RJ-JP:47701] (5 of 6) [CRLW-275/2018] death of a 7 years old girl on account of his rash and negligent driving tractor. 13. The Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Kamla Prasad Vs. State of Rajasthan reported in 2014 Cri.LJ 2582 wherein the accused petitioner had undergone a protracted trial for more than 29 years and looking to the over-all circumstances especially the fact that the petitioner had suffered persistent agony from last more than 29 years and he has remained in jail for about 18 days, reduced the sentence to the period already undergone by him. 14. In the present case also, the incident relates to the year 2010 and petitioner has so far undergone a period of about sixteen days in custody so also suffered the agony and trauma of protracted trial. Thus, looking to the over-all circumstances, it will be just and proper if the sentence awarded by the Gram Nyayalaya for offences under Sections 304A & 279 of IPC of Motor Vehicles Act and affirmed by the appellate court is reduced to the period already undergone while imposing the fine amount. 15. Accordingly, the criminal writ petition is partly allowed. While maintaining the petitioner’s conviction, the petitioner's sentence awarded for offences under Sections 304A & 279 of IPC is hereby reduced to the period already undergone. However, fine of Rs.10,000/- for offence under Section 304A IPC and Rs.1,000/- for offence under Section 279 IPC are hereby imposed upon the petitioner. The fine as imposed by the Gram Nyayalaya while [2025:RJ-JP:47701] (6 of 6) [CRLW-275/2018] convicting the petitioner for offences under Sections 39/192 & 66/192A of MV Act shall remain intact. 16. The petitioner is directed to deposit the fine amount as imposed by this Court and by the Gram Nyayalaya within a period of three months from the date of this order, failing which he shall undergo the default sentence awarded by the Gram Nyayalaya. Any amount already deposited by the petitioner shall be adjusted. 17. The petitioner is on bail. He need not surrender. His bail bonds are discharged. 18. The record of trial Court as well as the appellate Court, if received, be sent back forthwith. (ANIL KUMAR UPMAN),J MADAN/51