[2025:RJ-JP:28454] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 681/2007 Omprakash S/o Gyarsi Lal Dhakad, R/o Gudha Devji, Police Station Dei, District Bundi (Rajasthan) (At present in Jail Bundi- Raj.) ----Petitioner Versus State of Rajasthan through P.P. ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Ms. Rekha Arora For Respondent(s) : Mr. Naresh Kumar Meena, PP HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRAMIL KUMAR MATHUR Order JUDGMENT RESERVED ON :: 16/07/2025 JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED ON :: 06/08/2025 1. The petitioner has preferred this revision petition against the judgment dated 11.11.2005 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Hindoli District Bundi in Criminal Case No. 597/2004 whereby he has been convicted and sentenced as under:- Under Section 279 of IPC:- Three months simple Imprisonment and fine of Rs.500/-, in default of payment of fine, further seven days simple imprisonment Under Section 337 IPC:- Three months simple Imprisonment and fine of Rs.500/-, in default of payment of fine, further seven days simple imprisonment Under Section 338 IPC:- Six months simple Imprisonment and fine of Rs.500/-, in default of payment of fine, further seven days simple imprisonment [2025:RJ-JP:28454] (2 of 4) [CRLR-681/2007] Under Section 304-A IPC:- One year simple Imprisonment and fine of Rs.2000/-, in default of payment of fine, further fifteen days simple imprisonment 2. Challenging the judgment of conviction and sentence, the petitioner preferred an appeal before learned Additional Sessions Judge No.2, Bundi in Criminal Appeal No.62/2005, which was partly allowed on 04.06.2007 and the appellate court set aside the conviction and sentence for offence under Section 338 I.P.C but confirmed the conviction and sentence of the petitioner under Section 279, 337 and 304-A IPC. 3. Aggrieved with both the judgments, the petitioner has filed the present revision petition. 4. The brief facts giving rise to this case are that on 15.04.1988 one Mathura Lal, Conductor Bundi gave telephonic information that between Baasni & Devkheda, on the newly constructed road, one Metadoor bearing No. RPP-3231 driven in high speed rashly and negligently by his driver turned turtle due to which some ladies passengers and 3-4 children sitting in the Metadoor were crushed under the luggage. With the help of some passengers, they were sent to hospital at Deoli for their treatment. 5. After due investigation, charge-sheet was filed against petitioner before the competent court. 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 partly allowed by learned appellate court hence this revision petition. 6. Heard the rival contentions of learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. [2025:RJ-JP:28454] (3 of 4) [CRLR-681/2007] 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 one month and three days, therefore, he may be released on the period already undergone by him. 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. The appellate court has also after evaluating the material available on record fairly partly allowed the 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 judgments of conviction and has restricted his arguments qua the quantum of sentence only. The conviction of petitioner is therefore affirmed. [2025:RJ-JP:28454] (4 of 4) [CRLR-681/2007] 12. In the light of limited prayer made on behalf of the petitioner, the present petition is liable to be partly allowed while maintaining the conviction of the present petitioner as recorded by the learned courts below for the offence under Sections 279, 337 and 304-A IPC in the impugned judgments, this Court interferes only with the sentence part of the said judgments and considering the protracted trial 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. 13. Consequently, this revision petition is partly allowed and while maintaining the conviction as stated above, the petitioner Omprakash is sentenced to the period already undergone by him. The petitioner is on bail, he need not surrender. His bail bonds stands discharged accordingly. 14. All pending applications stands disposed of. Record of the courts below be sent back forthwith. (PRAMIL KUMAR MATHUR),J Bmgandhi/17