Rajasthan High Court – Jodhpur
Ganesh Lal vs State (2026:Rj-Jd:18083) on 17 April, 2026
Author: Farjand Ali
Bench: Farjand Ali
[2026:RJ-JD:18083]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 999/2005
Ganesh Lal S/o Bakhtawar Lal Ahir, aged 70 years, by caste Ahir,
resident of 71, Alipura, Police Station Bhopalpura, Udaipur.
(Presently lodged in Central Jail, Udaipur)
----Petitioner
Versus
The State of Rajasthan
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Ms. Shivangi Pathak
For Respondent(s) : Mr. NS Chandawat, PP
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FARJAND ALI
Order
17/04/2026
1. The instant criminal revision petition under Section 397/401
of the CrPC has been preferred by the petitioner being aggrieved
of the judgment dated 10.11.2005 passed by the learned
Additional Sessions Judge No.3, Udaipur in Criminal Appeal
No.17/2005, dismissing the appeal preferred against the judgment
dated 17.08.2004 passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial
Magistrate No.1, Udaipur in Regular Criminal Case No.78/2003,
whereby he was convicted and sentenced to suffer maximum
imprisonment of one year’s SI along with a fine of Rs.1,000/-
under Section 304 (A) of IPC and lesser punishment for the other
offences under Section 279 of IPC.
2. Bereft of elaborate details, facts relevant and essential for
disposal of the instant criminal revision are that As per the
prosecution case, on 29.10.1996, the complainant Abdul Rahim
(Uploaded on 28/04/2026 at 03:01:25 PM)
(Downloaded on 02/05/2026 at 12:32:26 AM)
[2026:RJ-JD:18083] (2 of 5) [CRLR-999/2005]
reported that he was driving truck No. RJ-27 G-1208 and had
parked it on the roadside near Amar Marble. At that time, the
driver of another truck bearing No.RJ-09 (RJU-909) drove the
vehicle in a rash and negligent manner at a high speed and hit the
parked truck, and also collided with a motorcycle bearing No.RJ-06
C-5556. As a result of the said accident, two persons died on the
spot and others sustained injuries. On the basis of the report, FIR
No. 684/96 was registered and investigation was conducted under
Sections 279, 337 and 304A of IPC. After completion of
investigation, a charge-sheet was filed against the accused for
offences under Sections 279 and 304(A) of the Indian Penal Code
before the Court.
3. The learned Magistrate framed charges against the petitioner
for the above offences and upon denial of guilt by him,
commenced the trial. 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 279 and 304 A of the IPC vide
judgment dated 17.08.2004. Aggrieved by the judgment of
conviction and order of sentence, he preferred an appeal, which
was dismissed by the learned appellate court vide judgment dated
10.11.2005 affirming the judgment 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
(Uploaded on 28/04/2026 at 03:01:25 PM)
(Downloaded on 02/05/2026 at 12:32:26 AM)
[2026:RJ-JD:18083] (3 of 5) [CRLR-999/2005]
alternative prayer of reduction of the sentence awarded by the
trial court. He submits that the incident in the present case
pertains to the year 1996. The offences involved are rash or
negligent driving and death by negligent act. The petitioner was a
70 years of age at the time of the incident. He has already
suffered agony of protracted trial for 30 years. The maximum
sentence awarded by the trial court is simple imprisonment of one
year. He has already remained in custody for a period of more
than 2 years and 1 month. He is an indigent person. With these
submissions, learned counsel prays that by taking a lenient view,
the sentences awarded to the petitioner may be reduced to the
period already undergone.
5. Learned public prosecutor has, of course, been able to
defend the case on merits but does not refute the fact that the
petitioner has remained behind the bars for significant time.
6. I have heard the counsel for the parties and gone through
material as made available to this Court.
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
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.
8. As far as the question of quantum of sentence in concerned,
it is worthwhile to note that the occurrence in this case pertains to
(Uploaded on 28/04/2026 at 03:01:25 PM)
(Downloaded on 02/05/2026 at 12:32:26 AM)
[2026:RJ-JD:18083] (4 of 5) [CRLR-999/2005]
the year 1996 and involves the offences of rash or negligent
driving and death by negligent act. The right to speedy and
expeditious trial is one of the most valuable and cherished rights
guaranteed under the Constitution. The petitioner has already
suffered the agony of protracted trial, spanning over a period of
more than 30 years and has been in the corridors of the court for
this prolonged period. The sentence awarded by the court below
is one year’s simple imprisonment. The petitioner has remained
incarcerated for around one month and fifteen days; He is a poor
person. In view of the facts noted above, the case of the petitioner
deserves to be dealt with leniency. The petitioner also deserves
the benefit of the consistent view taken by this court in this
regard. Thus, guided by the judicial pronouncements made by the
Hon’ble Supreme Court in the cases of Haripada Das Vs. State
of West Bangal reported in (1998) 9 SCC 678 and Alister
Anthony Pareira vs. State of Maharashtra reported in 2012 2
SCC 648 and considering the facts and circumstances of the case,
age of petitioner, period of incarceration, his status in the society
and the fact that he faced financial hardship and had to go
through mental agony, this court is of the view that at this time
the accused is of the age of 90 years approximately and at this
stage after 30 years of incident sending back him to jail to suffer
the rest part of the sentence would not only be unjust and
unreasonable but also against the principle of law. Reliance can
be placed upon the judgment passed by Hon’ble the Supreme
Court in the case of Alister Anthony Pareira Vs. State of
Maharashtra reported in 2012 (2) SCC 648.
(Uploaded on 28/04/2026 at 03:01:25 PM)
(Downloaded on 02/05/2026 at 12:32:26 AM)
[2026:RJ-JD:18083] (5 of 5) [CRLR-999/2005]
9. Accordingly, the judgment of conviction dated 17.08.2004
passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate No.1,
Udaipur in Regular Criminal Case No.78/2003 as well as the
judgment in appeal dated 10.11.2005 passed by the learned
Additional Sessions Judge No.3, Udaipur in Criminal Appeal
No.17/2005 are affirmed but the quantum of sentence awarded by
the learned trial court for each count, i.e. Sections 279 and 304 A
of the IPC, is modified to the extent that the sentence the
petitioner has undergone till date would be sufficient and
justifiable to serve the interest of justice. The petitioner is not in
custody. He is not require to surrender back. His bail bonds are
discharged.
10. The revision petition is allowed in part in above terms.
Pending applications, if any, including the suspension of sentence
application, are disposed of.
11. The record be sent back forthwith.
(FARJAND ALI),J
233-divya/-
(Uploaded on 28/04/2026 at 03:01:25 PM)
(Downloaded on 02/05/2026 at 12:32:26 AM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
