[2025:RJ-JP:21909] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 63/2007 Dhanesh S/o Ram Prakash R/o Saidpura, Police Station Uchchain, District Bharatpur (Raj.) (At present in Central Jail at Bharatpur) ----Petitioner Versus State of Rajasthan through Public Prosecutor ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Gaurav Gupta For Respondent(s) : Mr. Naresh Kumar Gupta, PP HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRAMIL KUMAR MATHUR JUDGMENT RESERVED ON :: 21/05/2025 JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED ON :: 30/05/2025 1. The petitioner has preferred this revision petition against the judgment dated 23.9.2003 passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate No.3, Bharatpur in Criminal Case No. 350/2001 whereby he has been convicted and sentenced as under:- Under Section 279 of IPC:- Six months simple Imprisonment and fine of Rs.250/-, in default of payment of fine, further seven days simple imprisonment Under Section 337 IPC:- Six months simple Imprisonment and fine of Rs.250/-, in default of payment of fine, further seven days simple imprisonment Under Section 304-A IPC:- One year simple Imprisonment and fine of Rs.1500/-, in default of payment of fine, further one month simple imprisonment 2. Challenging the judgment of conviction and sentence, the petitioner preferred an appeal before learned Special Judge, Dacoity Effected Area, Bharatpur in Criminal Appeal No.127/2003, [2025:RJ-JP:21909] (2 of 4) [CRLR-63/2007] which was dismissed on 11.1.2007 and the appellate court affirmed the conviction but reduced the sentence under Section 279 and 337 of IPC to three months simple Imprisonment and fine of Rs.250/-, in default of payment of fine, further seven days simple imprisonment and under Section 304-A IPC six months simple Imprisonment and fine of Rs.1500/-, in default of payment of fine, further one month simple imprisonment. 3. Aggrieved with both the judgments, the petitioner has filed the present revision petition. 4. The brief facts giving rise to this case are that complainant Sukhvir Singh has filed a complaint at Police Station Sevar, District Bharatpur stating therein that on 5.11.2001 at about 1.30 P.M., he was going to his village Naroli in Tractor No. RJ-05-I.R.4340 accompanied with Harswaroop and near village Sukhawali, a bus bearing No. D.L.1-P-1985 came rashly and negligently and hit the tractor trolley from the back side due to which tractor turned down and Harswaroop sustained injuries and during investigation he died. 5. After due investigation charge-sheet was filed against petitioner before the competent court. The trial court after considering the evidence adduced by the parties convicted and sentenced the petitioner as mentioned above and the appeal filed by the petitioner was dismissed by learned appellate court hence this revision petition. 6. Heard the rival contentions of learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. [2025:RJ-JP:21909] (3 of 4) [CRLR-63/2007] 7. At the outset, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he does not challenge the conviction of the petitioner and confined his arguments qua the quantum of sentence only. Learned counsel for the petitioner however makes a limited prayer that the petitioner has remained in custody for one month 14 days, therefore, he may be released on the period already undergone by him. 8. Per contra, the learned Public Prosecutor opposed the submissions and stated that in the backdrop of the overall facts and circumstances of the case and well reasoned order passed by both the courts below, the petitioner is not entitled for any indulgence by this Court. 9. I have given my earnest consideration to the rival contentions of the parties and scanned the matter carefully. 10. On perusal of the judgments of both the courts below, this Court is of the considered view that the trial court has rightly appreciated the evidence on record while holding the petitioner guilty of offence. The appellate court has rightly partly allowed the appeal. Therefore, there is no illegality or perversity in the findings given by both the courts below which warrants any interference by this Court by invoking the revisional jurisdiction. 11. Even otherwise, learned counsel for the petitioner has not assailed the judgments of conviction and has restricted his arguments qua the quantum of sentence only. The conviction of petitioner is therefore affirmed. [2025:RJ-JP:21909] (4 of 4) [CRLR-63/2007] 12. In the light of limited prayer made on behalf of the petitioner, the present petition is liable to be partly allowed while maintaining the conviction of the present petitioner as recorded by the learned courts below for the offence under Sections 279, 337 and 304-A IPC in the impugned judgments, this Court interferes only with the sentence part of the said judgments and considering the protracted trial and the period of custody, this Court feels that ends of justice would be met if the sentence awarded to the petitioner is reduced to the period already undergone by him. 13. Consequently, this revision petition is partly allowed and while maintaining the conviction as stated above, the petitioner Dhanesh is sentenced to the period already undergone by him. The petitioner is on bail, he need not surrender. His bail bonds stands discharged accordingly. 14. All pending applications stands disposed of. Record of the courts below be sent back forthwith. (PRAMIL KUMAR MATHUR),J BRIJ MOHAN GANDHI 77/1