[2025:RJ-JP:40939] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 633/2007 Yunus Khan S/o Shri Eesa Khan, R/o Village Raba, Police Station Firozpur Jhirka, District Gurgaon (Haryana). ---Accused-Petitioner Versus The State of Rajasthan, through the Public Prosecutor ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Gurvinder Singh For Respondent(s) : Mr. Jitendra Singh Rathore, A.G.A HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BHUWAN GOYAL Order 08/10/2025 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 – Yunus Khan against Judgment and Order dated 13.06.2007 passed by the appellate court in Criminal Appeal No. 42/2005 (Yunus Khan Vs. State of Rajasthan) vide which criminal appeal filed by the accused-petitioner qua his conviction for the offence under Sections 279, 304-A IPC as recorded by the trial court vide its judgment and order dated 28.05.2005 in Criminal Case No.297/99 (State of Rajasthan vs. Yunus Khan) is dismissed, whereas the sentence awarded to him by the trial court for the offence under Sections 279 & 304-A of I.P.C., as mentioned below, is modified. Offence Sentence awarded by the trial court Sentence modified by the appellate court under Section 279 IPC to undergo six months S.I. with fine of Rs.500/- in default of payment of fine, to further undergo 15 days' S.I. to undergo 3 months imprisonment with fine of Rs.500/-, in default of payment of fine, to further [2025:RJ-JP:40939] (2 of 6) [CRLR-633/2007] undergo 15 days imprisonment under Section 304-A IPC to undergo 2 years S.I. with fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default of payment of fine, to further undergo 1 month S.I. one year imprisonment with fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default of payment of fine, to further undergo 1 month imprisonment 2. Facts of the case in short are that on 05.11.1999, complainant-Kamal (PW-4) submitted a tehriri report (Ex.P/8) to the effect that he was going from Dairy to Bagad ki Tiraya on his tractor bearing No.RRA-7566. The tractor was being driven by Santok Singh. On the same day, around 11.30 AM-12.00 noon, when they reached near the petrol pump, a Cantra bearing registration No.DL 1L 1086 being driven its driver rashly and negligently came from Bakhthal Ki Chowki and while overtaking, the Cantra driver took its vehicle in left side and hit the tractor, due to which the wheel of the tractor broken down and Cantra dashed against a tree, causing injuries to the persons sitting in the tractor. The buffaloes and calves being carried in the Cantra also sustained injuries. On the basis of said report, the Police registered FIR No.382/99 and investigation was commenced. After completing the investigation, the police submitted the challan against accused petitioner for the offence under Sections 279, 337 and 304-A IPC before the concerned court. Charges were read over to the accused petitioner, who denied the same and claimed for trial. After conclusion of trial, the trial court passed judgment and order dated 28.05.2005 convicting and sentencing him for the offence under Sections 279 and 304-A IPC but acquitted him for [2025:RJ-JP:40939] (3 of 6) [CRLR-633/2007] the offence under Section 337 IPC. Thereafter, the petitioner filed an appeal and the appellate court vide its judgment dated 13.06.2007 dismissed the appeal qua conviction of the petitioner for the said offences but modified the sentence as awarded by the trial court. 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 want to press instant revision petition challenging judgments passed by the courts 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 1999 i.e. around 26 years ago; accused-petitioner was 30 years of age at the time of incident and now he is around 56 years old and facing agony of trial for the past about 26 years; 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 15 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 judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Chander Shekhar vs. State of Rajasthan (Criminal Appeal No. 4161/2024) [2025:RJ-JP:40939] (4 of 6) [CRLR-633/2007] decided on 04.10.2024 and the judgments rendered by a coordinate Bench of this Court in the cases of Shyamveer Singh vs. State of Rajasthan (S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 724/2003) decided on 15.05.2024, Smt. Sudesh Kumari vs. State of Rajasthan (S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 1047/2005) decided on 09.10.2024, Mahesh Bhargava vs. State of Rajasthan (S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 737/2005) decided on 06.11.2024, Pappu vs. State of Rajasthan (S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 538/2005) decided on 21.08.2024, Annu @ Anwar vs. State of Rajasthan (S.B. Criminal Writ Petition No. 333/2018) decided on 04.11.2024, Banna Ram vs. State of Rajasthan (S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 391 of 2006) decided on 08.07.2024, Heera Lal vs. State of Rajasthan (S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 733/2003) decided on 14.02.2024 & Ram Karan vs. State of Rajasthan (S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 972 of 2006) decided on 08.07.2024. 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 modified by the appellate court cannot be said to be disproportionate, therefore, no interference in sentence is warranted in this case. [2025:RJ-JP:40939] (5 of 6) [CRLR-633/2007] 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 30 years of age at the time of incident, has already suffered the agony of protracted trial, spanning over a period of more than 26 years and he remained incarcerated for some time after passing of the judgment, and no 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 [2025:RJ-JP:40939] (6 of 6) [CRLR-633/2007] 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 13.06.2007 and 28.05.2005 passed by both the courts below qua conviction of the accused-petitioner for the offence under Sections 279 & 304-A of I.P.C. are affirmed but the quantum of sentence awarded to the accused-petitioner by the trial court and modified by the appellate court 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/13