[2025:RJ-JP:44789] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 909/2007 Vishal S/o Shri Mangal Ram, R/o Teej Ki Swarn Road, Behind Balmiki Temple, Alwar (Raj) ----Accused/Petitioner Versus State of Rajasthan through PP ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Gurvinder Singh For Respondent(s) : Mr. Jitendra Singh Rathore, AGA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BHUWAN GOYAL Judgment 07/11/2025 1. The present revision petition has been filed by the accused- petitioner- Vishal S/o Shri Mangal Ram against the judgment and order dated 26.02.2005 passed by Additional Sessions Judge No.2, Alwar in Criminal Appeal No. 27/2004 titled as "Vishal Vs. State" vide which the criminal appeal filed by the petitioner has been partly allowed and while maintaining his conviction and sentence for the offence under 325 IPC as recorded by the Judicial Magistrate No.2, Alwar (Raj.) (hereinafter referred to as "trial court") vide Judgment and Order dated 05.02.2003 in Criminal Regular Case no. 247/98, acquitted him for the offence under Section 451 IPC. offence sentence fine sentence in default u/s 325 IPC 2 Year’s R.I Rs. 3,000/- To further undergo 2 month’s S.I. [2025:RJ-JP:44789] (2 of 6) [CRLR-909/2007] 2. Facts of the case in short are that complainant – Ashok Kumar (PW-3) submitted a report (Ex.P1) to the effect that on 19.03.1998 when he was sitting at his grocery shop situated at Scheme No.10, Vivek Vihar, Alwar, two persons out of which one was name Sunder and the other person having black complexion came there at about 5.15 pm and asked for Jayanti Gutka. The complainant gave that Gutka when he asked for money, they refused. They hit with a 500 Gms weighing measurement, due to which his 4-5 tooth broken down and blood oozed. He was admitted in General Hospital, Alwar in semi conscious condition. On that basis, F.I.R. No. 149/98 (Ex.P2) was registered at Police Station Kotwali, District Alwar for the offence under sections 451 and 325 IPC and investigation was commenced. During the course of investigation, police prepared site plan and recorded the statement of witnesses. After investigation, police submitted charge-sheet against petitioner along with co-accused for the offence under Sections 325, 451 and 34 IPC before the concerned court. Charges were read over to the petitioner for the offence under Sections 451/34 & 325/34 IPC, who denied the same and claimed for trial. The prosecution produced witnesses. The statement of accused-petitioner was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. After conclusion of trial, the trial court passed judgment and order dated 05.02.2003 convicting and sentencing the accused-petitioner for the offence under Section 451 and 325 IPC, whereas the co-accused Sunder Lal was convicted and sentenced for the offence under Sections 451 and 325/34 IPC. Co-accused Sunder Lal filed criminal appeal No.17/2004, which was allowed [2025:RJ-JP:44789] (3 of 6) [CRLR-909/2007] and he was acquitted for the offence under Sections 451 and 325/34 IPC. Thereafter, the petitioner filed an appeal and the appellate court vide its judgment and order dated 26.02.2005 partly allowed the appeal and while maintaining his conviction and sentence for the offence under Section 325 IPC, acquitted him for the offence under Section 451 IPC. 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 1998 i.e. around 27 years ago; accused-petitioner was 18 years of age at the time of incident and now he is around 45 years old and facing agony of trial for the past about 27 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 2 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. 6. Learned counsel for the accused-petitioner has relied upon the judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of Naib [2025:RJ-JP:44789] (4 of 6) [CRLR-909/2007] 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 Dana Ram vs. State of Rajasthan (S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 793/2007) decided on 19.03.2025 and Ram Dayal & Ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan (S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 597/2004) decided on 04.12.2024, 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 maintained 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 [2025:RJ-JP:44789] (5 of 6) [CRLR-909/2007] learned counsel for the parties; precedent law on the issue; accused-petitioner, who was 18 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 remained incarcerated for some time, 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 them 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…” [2025:RJ-JP:44789] (6 of 6) [CRLR-909/2007] 12. Consequently, the judgments and orders dated 26.02.2005 and 05.02.2003 passed by both the courts below qua conviction of the accused-petitioner for the offence under Section 325 IPC are affirmed but the sentence awarded to the accused-petitioner by the trial court for the offence under Section 325 IPC and maintained 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 cancelled. 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 DK/100