[2025:RJ-JP:37218] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 392/2007 Vijendra S/o Bhim Singh, R/o Kheda Taraf Bahatu, Police Station Kathumar, District Alwar (Raj.) (At present in District Jail at Alwar) ----Petitioner Versus State of Rajasthan, through Public Prosecutor ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. V. S. Chauhan For Respondent(s) For Complainant : : Mr. Naresh Kumar Gupta, PP Mr. Yashvardhan Tolani HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRAMIL KUMAR MATHUR JUDGMENT RESERVED ON :: 10/09/2025 JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED ON :: 26/09/2025 1. The petitioner Vijendra has preferred this revision petition against the judgment dated 11.10.2006 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, No.1, Kathumar, District Alwar in Criminal Case No.167/2002 whereby he has been convicted and sentenced as under:- Under Section 326 of IPC:- three years Simple Imprisonment alongwith fine of Rs.1,000/- and in default of payment of fine, further ordered to undergo two months’ Simple Imprisonment. 2. Challenging the judgment of conviction and sentence, the petitioner preferred an appeal before learned Additional Sessions Judge, Laxmangarh, District Alwar in Criminal Appeal No.30/2006, which was dismissed on 12.04.2007 and the appellate court affirmed the conviction but reduced the sentence awarded by the [2025:RJ-JP:37218] (2 of 4) [CRLR-392/2007] trial court to one year and fine of Rs.1,000/- with default stipulation. 3. Aggrieved with both the judgments, the petitioner has filed the present revision petition. 4. The brief and relevant facts giving rise to this revision petition are that on 05.04.2002 complainant Bhanwar Singh lodged a report before the Police Station Kathumar against the petitioner and other family members stating therein that on dated 04.04.2002 at about 3.00 P.M. when he was harvesting the crop in his uncle’s field accused persons namely: Vijendra, Sheoram, Rohtash, Surendra, Bhawani, Amar Singh and Angad Sinh armed with sharp weapons came to the field with common intention and started to abuse Mordhwaj and his wife Kamla and when complainant tried to intervene, the accused persons assaulted him and Vijendra caused injury on his right ear by sharp edged weapon due to which his ear cut down. Other accused persons also assaulted him by hitting on the hands and legs and with the intervention of Mordhwaj, Rajendra Singh, Omvir Singh, Chhitar Singh and Bane Sinh he was rescued. On the basis of the aforesaid report First Information Report No.44/2002 was registered and investigation was started. 5. After due investigation charge-sheet was filed under Sections 326, 323, 341 and 34 IPC against the accused persons namely Vijendra, Sheoram and Surendra Singh before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Kathumar. 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 but reduced [2025:RJ-JP:37218] (3 of 4) [CRLR-392/2007] the sentence awarded by trial Court to one year simple imprisonment and fine of Rs.1,000/- with default stipulation, hence this revision petition. 6. Heard the rival contentions of learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 7. At the outset, learned counsel for the parties have fairly admitted that the complainant as well as injured have arrived at a compromise. The parties present in Court also admitted the said fact and they have filed the compromise deed also. 8. I have given my earnest consideration to the rival contentions of the parties and scanned the matter carefully. 9. During pendency of this revision petition, the parties have settled their dispute amiably and filed a compromise deed. Therefore, learned counsel for the petitioner has prayed that considering the amicable settlement between the parties a lenient view may be taken as he does not challenge conviction of the petitioner but confined his arguments qua the sentence only. Learned counsel for the petitioner however makes a limited prayer that the petitioner has remained in judicial custody for one month and eleven days and has been suffering the agony of trial since long, therefore, it has been submitted that the sentence awarded to the petitioner may be reduced to the period already undergone by him. 10. 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 [2025:RJ-JP:37218] (4 of 4) [CRLR-392/2007] both the courts below, the petitioner is not entitled for any indulgence by this Court. 11. I have given my earnest consideration to the rival contentions of the parties and scanned the matter carefully. 12. 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 the offence. The appellate court has also correctly dismissed the appeal after proper evaluation of the evidence. 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. 13. Thus, considering the amicable settlement, protracted trial since 2006 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. 14. Consequently, the revision petition is partly allowed and while maintaining the conviction as stated above, the petitioner is sentenced to the period already undergone by him. The petitioner is on bail, he need not surrender. His bail bonds stands discharged accordingly. 15. All pending applications stands disposed of. Record of the courts below be sent back forthwith. (PRAMIL KUMAR MATHUR),J bmg/