HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 1491/2008 Gopal Lal S/o Murlidhar, R/o Ward No.9, Kaswa Chomu, District Jaipur. ---Accused-Petitioner Versus The State of Rajasthan through the P. P. ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Rinesh Gupta, Adv. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Jitendra Singh Rathore, Addl.G.A. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BHUWAN GOYAL Order 20/09/2025 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- Gopal Lal against the Judgment dated 19.11.2008 passed by the learned Additional District & Sessions Judge (Fast Track), Chomu, Jaipur (hereinafter referred to as "the appellate court") in Criminal Appeal No. 07/2008 (Gopal Lal Vs. State of Rajasthan) vide which criminal appeal filed by the accused-petitioner against the Judgment and Order of Sentence dated 16.06.2008 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Chomu, District Jaipur (hereinafter referred to as "the trial court") in Criminal Case No.322/94 (State of Rajasthan vs. Gopal Lal) convicting and sentencing him for the offences under sections 279 and 304-A IPC has been modified as under: (2 of 7) [CRLR-1491/2008] For the offence under Section 279 IPC: The petitioner has been sentenced to undergo 2 months’ simple imprisonment, instead of 3 months’ simple imprisonment. For the offence under Section 304-A IPC: The petitioner has been sentenced to undergo 9 months’ simple imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 200/-, and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo 7 day’s imprisonment instead of 1 year’s Simple Imprisonment with fine of Rs. 500/- and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo 15 days’ simple imprisonment. 2. Facts of the case in short are that on 20.04.1994, complainant -Vasudev (PW-1) submitted a Tehriri report at the Police Station- Govindgarh to the effect that on 20.04.1994 when he was returning from village Govindgarh and at about 4:15 PM, when he reached at Dodhsar Bus Stand, a Jeep having registration No. RJ-14-7534 was coming from Chomu to Reengus, which was being driven by its driver rashly and negligently. When jeep was crossing the Bus Stand, it hit a person who was crossing the road from west to east, as a result of which, he sustained injuries. Upon inquiring, the driver's name was found to be Gopal Lal. 3. On the basis the said report, FIR no.70/94 was registered at Police Station Govindgarh for the offence under section 279 & 337 IPC and investigation was commenced. After Investigation, the police submitted challan for the offence under Section 279 and 304-A IPC. Charge was framed (3 of 7) [CRLR-1491/2008] against the petitioner and trial was commenced. After conclusion of trial, the trial court passed judgment and order of sentence dated 16.06.2008 convicting and sentencing the petitioner for the offence under Sections 279 and 304-A of I.P.C. Aggrieved by the judgment of conviction and sentence dated 16.06.2008, accused-petitioner preferred an appeal before the learned appellate court where the learned appellate court vide judgment dated 19.11.2008 reduced the sentence of the petitioner for the offence under Section 279 IPC from 3 months’ simple imprisonment to undergo 2 months’ simple imprisonment” and for the offence under Section 304-A IPC from one year’s simple imprisonment to undergo 9 months’ simple imprisonment. The fine was also reduced from Rs. 500/- to Rs. 200/- and in default of payment of fine, sentence was reduced from 15 days to 7 days’ additional imprisonment. Hence, this criminal revision petition has been preferred by the accused-petitioner. 4. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 5. 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.. 6. Learned counsel for the accused-petitioner has submitted that incident in the present case took place way back in the year 1994 i.e. around 31 years ago; accused-petitioner was 30 years of age at the time of incident and now he is around 61 years old and facing agony of trial since last around 31 years; accused-petitioner who is sole bread earner in the family, belongs to poor strata of (4 of 7) [CRLR-1491/2008] society and remained in custody for a period of twelve 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. 7. 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. 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. (5 of 7) [CRLR-1491/2008] 8. 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 and modified by the appellate court cannot be said to be disproportionate, therefore, no interference in sentence is warranted in this case. 9. 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. 10. 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 want 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. 11. As far as quantum of sentence is concerned, a perusal of record transpires that accused-petitioner, who was only 30 years at the time of incident, has already suffered the agony of protracted trial, spanning over a period of around 31 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. 12. This Court is conscious of the judgments rendered in Alister Anthony Pareira Vs. State of Maharashtra : (2012) 2 SCC (6 of 7) [CRLR-1491/2008] 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…” 13. 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. 14. Consequently, the judgments dated 19.11.2008 and 16.06.2008 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 of the accused petitioner for the offence under Sections 279 & 304A of I.P.C., as awarded 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- (7 of 7) [CRLR-1491/2008] petitioner is on bail. He need not to surrender. His bail bonds are discharged. 15. The revision petition stands disposed of with aforesaid modification in the order of sentence. 16. A copy of this order along with records be sent to the trial court forthwith. (BHUWAN GOYAL),J Gourav/17