[2025:RJ-JP:36724] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 808/2007 1. Trilok son of Shri Kalya Kanjar 2. Ram Swaroop son of Shri Kalya Kanjar 3. Kishan son of Shri Kalya Kanjar All are residents of Village Polyada Police Station Duni Tehsil Deoli District Tonk (Rajasthan) ----Petitioners/accused Versus State of Rajasthan through Public Prosecutor ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. S.C. Gupta, Advocate with Mr. Harsh Saraswat, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. Amit Gupta, Public Prosecutor HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD KUMAR BHARWANI Order 10/09/2025 : Instant revision petition has been filed on behalf of accused/ petitioners under Section 397 r/w Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 being aggrieved by judgment dt.19.07.2007 passed by Court of ld. Additional Sessions Judge, (Fast Track) No.4, Tonk, in Criminal Appeal No.28/2007 (56/2006) whereby the appeal filed by petitioners have been dismissed & the judgment dt.08.11.2006 passed by Court of ld. Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class Deoli District Tonk, in Criminal Case No.1067/2003 (86/89) whereby the petitioners have been convicted for offence punishable under Section 394 of I.P.C. & sentenced to undergo three years rigorous imprisonment alongwith fine of Rs.2000/- each and in default thereof to further undergo three months additional rigorous imprisonment, has been affirmed. Submissions of learned counsel appearing for the accused- petitioners are that the petitioners were on bail during trial and appeal. There are material contradictions & inconsistencies in the statements of [2025:RJ-JP:36724] (2 of 3) [CRLR-808/2007] prosecution witnesses. The sentence, so awarded to petitioners were, however, suspended by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide its order dt.06.08.2007. The petitioners deserve some leniency as they have been constrained to undergo the ordeal of trial proceedings since the year, 1988 thereby suffering protracted litigation for an inordinate period of approximately 37 years. Further submission is that ld. Counsel shall not assail the conviction of the petitioners and confines his arguments to the alternative prayer of reduction of sentence awarded by ld. trial Court to the period already undergone by them. Hence, this petition be partly allowed & the sentence awarded to petitioner be reduced to the period already undergone by them. On the other hand, learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the State, has submitted that there is no illegality or infirmity in the impugned judgments whatsoever and, therefore, the same do not call for any interference in exercise of revisional jurisdiction by this Court. However, he did not seriously dispute the submission regarding reduction of sentence. Heard learned counsel for the rival parties at length. Perused the impugned judgments and the entire record of the case. Since the present revision petition against conviction is not pressed and after perusing the material nothing is noticed which requires interference in the finding of guilt reached by ld. Trial Court and affirmed by the appellate Court, this Court does not wish to interfere in the judgment of conviction. Accordingly, the judgment of conviction is maintained. So far as the question of quantum of sentence is concerned, it is pertinent to note here that in the present case, incident pertains to the year 1988. The petitioners have already suffered the agony of protracted litigation, spanning over a period around 37 years and have [2025:RJ-JP:36724] (3 of 3) [CRLR-808/2007] been in the corridors of the Court for this prolonged period. They remained incarcerated for some time, hence, the case of the petitioners deserve to be dealt with leniency. Thus, guided by the judicial pronouncements made by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the cases of Alister Anthony Pareira Vs. State of Maharashtra, (2012) 2 SCC 648 and Haripada Das Vs. State of West Bengal, (1998) 9 SCC 678 and considering the facts & circumstances of the case, status of the petitioners in the society and the fact that they faced financial hardship and they had to go through mental agony, this Court is of the view that the ends of justice would be met, if sentence imposed upon the petitioners be reduced to the period already undergone by them. Looking to the facts & circumstances of the present case & considering the submissions made at bar, more particularly the long pendency of the case & the old date of alleged incident as well as keeping in mind the precedent laws (supra), the revision petition is partly allowed, while maintaining the conviction of the petitioners for the alleged offences. However, the substantive sentence of imprisonment awarded to the petitioners are reduced to the period already undergone by them. The petitioners are on bail. They need not surrender. Their bail bonds stand discharged accordingly. Record be sent to the trial Court. (VINOD KUMAR BHARWANI),J ASHOK