[2025:RJ-JP:20240] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 176/2006 Phool Chand son of Kanhaiya resident of Bonli Distt. Sawai Madhopur (At present accused petitioner is in Sub Jail Gangapur City) ----Petitioner Versus State of Rajasthan through P.P. ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Raghunandan Sharma For Respondent(s) : Mr. Jaiprakash Tiwari HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRAMIL KUMAR MATHUR JUDGEMENT RESERVED ON :: 16/04/2025 JUDGEMENT PRONOUNCED ON :: 23/05/2025 1. The petitioner Phool Chand was convicted for the offence under Sections 279, 337 and 338 of Indian Penal Code vide judgment dated 15.7.2005 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate (First Class) Bonli, District Sawai Madhopur in Criminal Case No.166/1999 and sentenced to undergo imprisonment as under:- Under Section 279 of IPC :- Two months simple imprisonment alongwith fine of Rs.500/- and in default of payment of fine, further ordered to undergo one month simple imprisonment. Under Section 337 of IPC :- Two months simple imprisonment alongwith fine of Rs.500/- and in default of payment of fine, further ordered to undergo one month simple imprisonment. [2025:RJ-JP:20240] (2 of 4) [CRLR-176/2006] Under Section 338 of IPC :- six months simple imprisonment alongwith fine of Rs.1000/- and in default of payment of fine, further ordered to undergo two months simple imprisonment. All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. 2. Challenging the judgment of conviction and sentence, the petitioner preferred an appeal before learned Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Cases, Sawai Madhopur in Criminal Appeal No.4/2006 (61/2005), which was also dismissed on 15.2.2006. 3. Aggrieved with both the judgments, the petitioner has filed the present revision petition. 4. The case of prosecution is based on FIR lodged by complainant Mohan Lal Raigar on 21.3.99 stating that he along with his brother and mother were going from their residence Madhopur to village Golpur in Jeep No. RJ-26/C-509 which was being driven by Phool Chand rashly and negligently. Near Nursing Circle that Jeep turned turtle due to which he himself, his brother and mother and other passengers got severe injuries. 5. After due investigation charge-sheet was filed against the petitioner before the competent court. The concerned court of Judicial Magistrate (First Class) Bonli, District Sawai Madhopur after considering the evidence adduced by the parties convicted and sentenced the petitioner as mentioned above and the appeal filed by the petitioner was also dismissed by learned appellate court of Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Cases, Sawai Madhopur, hence this revision petition. [2025:RJ-JP:20240] (3 of 4) [CRLR-176/2006] 6. Heard the rival contentions of learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 7. At the outset, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he does not challenge the conviction of the petitioner and confined his arguments qua the quantum of sentence only. Learned counsel for the petitioner however makes a limited prayer that the petitioner has remained in custody for 14 days, therefore, he may be granted benefit of probation under Probation of Offenders Act, 1958. 8. 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 both the courts below, the petitioner is not entitled for any indulgence by this Court. 9. I have given my earnest consideration to the rival contentions of the parties and scanned the matter carefully. 10. 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 offence under Sections 279, 337 and 338 of IPC. The appellate court has rightly dismissed his appeal. 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. 11. Even otherwise, learned counsel for the petitioner has not assailed the judgment of conviction and has restricted his [2025:RJ-JP:20240] (4 of 4) [CRLR-176/2006] arguments qua the quantum of sentence only. The conviction of petitioner is therefore affirmed. 12. In the light of limited prayer made on behalf of the petitioner, the present petition is partly allowed while maintaining the conviction of the present petitioner for the offence under Sections 279, 337 and 338 of IPC as recorded by the learned courts below in the impugned judgment, this Court interferes only with the sentence part of the said judgments and direct that the petitioner shall be released on probation under Section 4 of the Act of 1958 upon his furnishing a personal bond of Rs.50,000/- with two sureties in the sum of Rs.25,000/- each to the satisfaction of the trial court with further undertaking that he shall maintains peace and good behavior for a period of two years and shall not repeat the offence. The petitioner is on bail, he need not surrender. His bail bonds stands discharged accordingly. 13. All pending applications stands disposed of. Record of the courts below be sent back forthwith. (PRAMIL KUMAR MATHUR),J BRIJ MOHAN GANDHI 77/136