[2025:RJ-JP:37783] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 1244/2008 Ram Kumar S/o Udmiram, R/o Maswasi Ki Dhani, Police Station Kotkasim, District Alwar (At present lodged in Sub Jail, Kishangarhbas, Alwar) ----Petitioner Versus State of Rajasthan through P.P ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Hemang Singh for Mr. Biri Singh Sinsinwer For Respondent(s) : Mr. Manvinder Singh Shekhawat Dy. G.A. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BHUWAN GOYAL Order 17/09/2025 1. The present revision petition under Section 397 read with Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed by the accused-petitioner – Ram Kumar against Judgment and Order dated 04.10.2008 passed by Additional Sessions Judge (Fastrack), Kishangarhbas, District Alwar (hereinafter referred to as "appellate court") in Criminal Appeal No. 26/08 (Ram Kumar & Anr. vs. State of Rajasthan) vide which criminal appeal filed by the accused- petitioner against the Judgment and Order dated 17.03.2008 passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kishangarhbas, District Alwar (hereinafter referred to as "trial court") in Criminal Regular Case no. 240/03 (State of Rajasthan vs. Ram Kumar & Ors.) qua conviction and sentence awarded to him for the offences under Section 326 & 324 of I.P.C. as under, has been dismissed. offence sentence fine sentence in default [2025:RJ-JP:37783] (2 of 7) [CRLR-1244/2008] u/s 326 IPC 1 Year’s S.I Rs. 250/- To further undergo 1 month’s S.I u/s 324 IPC 6 Months S.I Rs. 100/- To further undergo 1 month’s S.I (Both sentences were ordered to run concurrently) 2. Facts of the case in short are that on 15.11.1998, one Lalaram (P.W. 2) submitted a tehriri report (Ex.P/1) written by complainant - Sukhvir (P.W.1) at Police Station Kotkasim, District Alwar to the effect that on 15.11.1998 at 6.00 – 7.00 a.m., he was coming from Maswasi to his house in the camel cart, then in between his house and Maswasi, Ramu, Amilal, Moola, Dharmpal, Jena, Pool Singh, Haripal, Chhotelal and Ghadsi armed with lathis, farsi and axe with common intention attacked on him. Ramu Gurjar inflicted farsi blow on his leg. Amilal inflicted axe blow on his right leg and other persons having lathis in their hands, stopped him on the way and beat him badly with an intention to kill him. When he made hue and cry, then his father Prabhatilal and brother Lalaram came there. The aforesaid persons surrounded them and gave beating to them too. Teeth of his father was broken. His brother also received various injuries on his leg and head etc. On the basis of said report, F.I.R. No. 172/1998 was registered at Police Station Kotkasim, District Alwar for the offence under Sections 147, 341 & 323 of I.P.C. After conclusion of investigation, police submitted charge-sheet against accused- petitioner and co- accused namely Dharampal, Chhotelal, Haripal and Amilal for the offence under Sections 147, 148, 149, 341, 323, 324, 325, 326 & 307 of I.P.C. before the concerned [2025:RJ-JP:37783] (3 of 7) [CRLR-1244/2008] Magistrate, who committed the case to the court of Sessions, from where it was transferred to the court of Additional Sessions Judge No. 1, Kishangarhbas, who discharged the accused persons for the offence under Section 307 of I.P.C. and matter was remitted to the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Alwar under Section 228 Crpc for trial for rest of the offences. Later on the case was transferred to the court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kishangarhbas, District Alwar for trial. The trial court framed charges against the accused persons for the offence under Sections 147, 148, 323/149, 324/149, 325/149, 326/149 of I.P.C. and trial was commenced. After conclusion of trial, the trial court passed judgment and order of sentence dated 17.03.2008 acquitting other persons except accused Ramkumar and Amilal. Accused Ram Kumar was convicted and sentenced for the offence under sections 326 & 324 of I.P.C. as indicated above whereas accused Amilal was convicted and sentenced for the offence under section 324 of I.P.C. Aggrieved by the judgment of conviction and sentence dated 17.03.2008, accused-petitioner and the co-accused Amilal preferred an appeal before the learned appellate court, which partly allowed appeal to the extent of co-accused Amilal and acquitted him for the offence under Section 324 of I.P.C. but dismissed the appeal of the accused-petitioner. Hence, this criminal revision petition has been preferred by the accused- petitioner. 3. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 4. After arguing the matter on merits at some length, learned counsel for the accused-petitioner does not wish to press instant revision petition challenging judgments passed by the courts [2025:RJ-JP:37783] (4 of 7) [CRLR-1244/2008] below qua conviction and prefers to make submissions on the point of sentence only. 5. Learned counsel for the accused-petitioner has submitted that incident in the present case took place way back in the year 1998 i.e. around 27 years ago; accused-petitioner was 38 years of age at the time of incident and now he is around 65 years old and facing agony of trial for the past about 27 years; co-accused Dharampal, Chotelal, Haripal and Amilal have already acquitted of offences alleged against them by the trial court/appellate court and no appeal has been filed by the State or complainant challenging their acquittal; accused-petitioner who is sole bread earner in the family, belongs to poor strata of society and remained in police and judicial custody for a period of 28 days and there is no previous conviction recorded against the accused- petitioner, therefore, he prays that ends of justice would meet if a lenient view is taken in the matter and sentence of imprisonment awarded to the accused-petitioner is reduced to the period already undergone by him. 6. Learned counsel for the accused-petitioner has relied upon the judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of Naib Singh vs. State of Punjab reported in AIR 1986 Supreme Court 2192 and the judgments rendered by a coordinate Bench of this Court in the cases of Tej Singh & Ors. vs. State of Rajasthan through PP (S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 283/2007) decided on 16.07.2025, Jagdish Narayan Vs. State of Rajasthan (S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 407/2004) decided on 15.05.2024, Shankar lal & Ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan (S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. [2025:RJ-JP:37783] (5 of 7) [CRLR-1244/2008] 431/2002) decided on 05.07.2022 and Nemi Chand Vs. State of Rajasthan (S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 654/2002) decided on 29.06.2022. 7. Per contra, learned Government Advocate while opposing the revision petition, submits that looking to the overall facts and circumstances of the case and the well reasoned speaking orders passed by the courts below, sentence awarded by the trial court and affirmed by the appellate court cannot be said to be disproportionate, therefore, no interference in sentence is warranted in this case. 8. I have considered the arguments advanced at the Bar and have gone through judgments passed by both the courts below and record of the case. 9. Since the revision petition against conviction of the accused- petitioner is not pressed on merits and after perusing the record, nothing is noticed which requires interference in the finding of guilt reached by the courts below. This Court does not wish to interfere in the judgments passed by courts below qua conviction of the accused-petitioner. Accordingly, the judgments passed by the courts below qua conviction of the accused-petitioner are maintained. 10. As far as quantum of sentence is concerned, after perusing judgments and orders impugned, considering the submissions of learned counsel for the parties; precedent law on the issue; accused-petitioner, who was only 38 years of age at the time of incident, has already suffered the agony of protracted trial, spanning over a period of more than 27 years and he remained incarcerated for some time after passing of the judgment, and no [2025:RJ-JP:37783] (6 of 7) [CRLR-1244/2008] evidence regarding previous conviction of the accused-petitioner is produced on record, this Court is of the opinion that if at this stage, he is sent behind bars, it will result into reviving old enmity and the same will not be conducive for peace and harmony in the village and that family of the petitioner will also suffer, therefore, no fruitful purpose would be served by sending him to jail now. 11. This Court is conscious of the judgments rendered in Alister Anthony Pareira Vs. State of Maharashtra : (2012) 2 SCC 648 and Haripada Das Vs. State of W.B. : (1998) 9 SCC 678, wherein, the Hon'ble Apex Court observed as under:- Alister Anthony Pareira (Supra) “There is no straitjacket formula for sentencing an accused on proof of crime. The courts have evolved certain principles: twin objective of the sentencing policy is deterrence and correction. What sentence would meet the ends of justice depends on the facts and circumstances of each case and the court must keep in mind the gravity of the crime, motive for the crime, nature of the offence and all other attendant circumstances.” Haripada Das (Supra) “…considering the fact that the respondent had already undergone detention for some period and the case is pending for a pretty long time for which he had suffered both financial hardship and mental agony and also considering the fact that he had been released on bail as far back as on 17-1-1986, we feel that the ends of justice will be met in the facts of the case if the sentence is reduced to the period already undergone…” 12. Consequently, the judgments dated 04.10.2008 and 17.03.2008 passed by both the courts below qua conviction of the accused-petitioner for the offences under Section 324 & 326 of I.P.C. are affirmed but the quantum of sentence awarded to the accused-petitioner by the trial court and affirmed by the appellate court is modified to the extent that sentence awarded to the accused-petitioner for the offence under Sections 324 & 326 of [2025:RJ-JP:37783] (7 of 7) [CRLR-1244/2008] I.P.C. is reduced to the period already undergone by him, which would be sufficient and justifiable to serve interest of justice. The accused-petitioner is on bail. He need not to surrender. His bail bonds are discharged. 13. The revision petition stands disposed of accordingly. 14. A copy of this order along with records be sent to the trial court forthwith. (BHUWAN GOYAL),J Anu/15