[2025:RJ-JP:36032] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 224/2007 Shaukat son of Mehboob Khan, R/O D.C.M.Police Station Udhyog Nagar, Kota (Raj.) (At present petitioner confined in Central Jail, Jaipur) ----Accused/Petitioner Versus State of Rajasthan Through PP ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Abdul Kalam Khan For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vivek Sharma, Addl.GA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BHUWAN GOYAL Judgment / Order 08/09/2025 1. Learned Addl. Government Advocate has submitted the report dated 27.08.2025 sent by S.H.O, Police Station Udhyog Nagar, Kota(Raj.). 2. As per report, sole petitioner is alive. 3. Report is taken on record. 4. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, revision petition is heard today. 5. The present revision petition under Section 397 read with Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, has been filed by the accused-petitioner- Shaukat against Judgment and Order dated 19.02.2007 passed by Special Judge S.T./S.C.(Prevention of Atrocity Cases), Kota (hereinafter referred to as "appellate court") in Criminal Appeal No. 12/2006 (Shaukat vs. State of Rajasthan) vide which criminal appeal filed by the accused-petitioner against [2025:RJ-JP:36032] (2 of 6) [CRLR-224/2007] the Judgment and Order of Sentence dated 19.08.2006 passed by Judicial Magistrate First Class, No.3, Kota (South), (hereinafter referred to as "trial court") in Criminal Regular Case no. 2039/01 (State of Rajasthan vs. Shaukat) convicting and sentencing him for the offence under section 304-A I.P.C. to undergo one year simple imprisonment with fine of Rs.500/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo two months additional simple imprisonment, was dismissed. 6. Facts of the case in short are that on the basis of the written report(Ex.P4) submitted by complainant – Hemraj (P.W. 1) with respect to an incident which occurred on 29.12.2000, wherein the allegation was that his elder sister took her minor son Govind aged six years for natural call and while she was returning back, driver of tempo No.RJ-20-P722 plying it rashly and negligently at high speed came from the side of Raipura Circle and hit Govind due to which he fell down and became unconscious and subsequently he died while undergoing treatment, F.I.R. No. 367/2000 was registered at Police Station Udhyog Nagar, Kota City, for the offence under Section 304A of I.P.C. After conclusion of investigation, police submitted charge-sheet against accused- petitioner for the said offence. The trial court framed charge for the aforesaid offence and trial was commenced. After conclusion of trial, the trial court passed judgment and order of sentence dated 19.08.2006 convicting and sentencing him for the offence under Section 304-A of I.P.C., as stated above. Aggrieved by judgment of conviction and sentence dated 19.08.2006, accused- petitioner preferred an appeal before the learned appellate court, [2025:RJ-JP:36032] (3 of 6) [CRLR-224/2007] which was dismissed by appellate court. Hence, this criminal revision petition has been preferred by the accused-petitioner. 7. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 8. 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 below qua conviction and prefers to make submissions on the point of sentence only. 9. Learned counsel for the accused-petitioner has submitted that incident in the present case took place way back in the year 2000 i.e. around 25 years ago; accused-petitioner was 32 years of age at the time of incident and now he is around 57 years old and facing agony of trial since last around 25 years; accused-petitioner who is sole bread earner in the family, belongs to poor strata of society and remained in custody for a period of almost two months 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. 10. 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) 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. [2025:RJ-JP:36032] (4 of 6) [CRLR-224/2007] 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. 11. Per contra, learned Additional 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 cannot be said to be disproportionate, therefore, no interference in sentence is warranted in this case. 12. 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 as also judgments cited in this case. 13. 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 [2025:RJ-JP:36032] (5 of 6) [CRLR-224/2007] 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. 14. As far as quantum of sentence is concerned, a perusal of record transpires that accused-petitioner, who was only 32 years at the time of incident, has already suffered the agony of protracted trial, spanning over a period of around 25 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. 15. 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…” [2025:RJ-JP:36032] (6 of 6) [CRLR-224/2007] 16. After perusing judgments and orders impugned, considering the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and the precedent law on the issue, this Court is of the opinion that if at this stage, accused-petitioner is sent behind bars, family of the petitioner will also suffer, therefore, no fruitful purpose would be served by sending him to jail now. 17. Consequently, the judgments dated 19.02.2007 and 19.08.2006 passed by both the courts below qua conviction of the accused-petitioner for the offence under Section 304-A of I.P.C. are affirmed but the quantum of sentence for the offence under section 304-A of I.P.C., awarded to the accused-petitioner by the trial court and affirmed by the appellate court is modified and 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. 18. The revision petition stands disposed of with aforesaid modification in the order of sentence, only. 19. A copy of this order along with records be sent to the trial court forthwith. (BHUWAN GOYAL),J Anu/2/