[2025:RJ-JP:39496] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 183/2008 Babu Lal S/o Heera Lal, R/O Chatarganj (Kailashpuri), Hindoli, District Bundi (At present confined in District Jail, Bundi) ----Petitioner Versus State of Rajasthan, through P.P. ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Santosh Kumar Jain For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vijay Yadav, Additional G.A. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BHUWAN GOYAL Order 24/09/2025 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 – Babu Lal against Judgment and Order dated 19.12.2007 passed by Additional Sessions Judge no. 1, Bundi (Raj.) (hereinafter referred to as "appellate court") in Criminal Appeal No. 118/07 (Babu Lal vs. State of Rajasthan) vide which criminal appeal filed by the accused-petitioner against the Judgment and Order dated 02.03.2007 passed by Additional Judicial Magistrate First Class no. 2, Bundi (Raj.) (hereinafter referred to as "trial court") in Criminal Regular Case no. 230/06 (State of Rajasthan vs. Babu Lal) qua conviction and sentence awarded to him for the offence under Sections 279 & 304-A of I.P.C., was dismissed. The sentence awarded to the petitioner is as under:- [2025:RJ-JP:39496] (2 of 7) [CRLR-183/2008] offence sentence fine sentence in default u/s 279 IPC 6 Months S.I Rs. 200/- To further undergo 15 days S.I u/s 304-A IPC 2 Years S.I Rs. 300/- To further undergo 15 days S.I (Both sentences were ordered to run concurrently) 2. Facts of the case in short are that on 16.04.1998, one Hazara (P.W. 1) submitted a parcha bayan (Ex.P/2) at Mortuary, Bundi to the effect that he and his son Ladu lal had hired a tractor trolly and after filling up the same with wheat crop, came to Mandi at District Bundi. On the said tractor-trolley, his elder son Ladu lal, Lodki Lal, Jaganath, Mahadeva, Rajaram and Ram Dev Gujar were sitting. An the slope of Akoda, the owner of the tractor Babu Lal drove it rashly and negligently and overturned the tractor trolley due to which the persons sitting in the trolley sustained injuries and the left leg of Ladu Lal got fractured at two places and he sustained head injury as well. He was taken to the hospital at Bundi, where he died. On the basis of said Parcha Bayan, the Police registered FIR No.74/98 and investigation was commenced. After completing the investigation, the police submitted the challan against accused Babu Lal for the offence under Sections 279, 337 and 304-A IPC and Section 39/192 of M.V. Act before the Judicial Magistrate, Hindoli from where the case was committed to the court of Additional Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class No.2, Bundi for [2025:RJ-JP:39496] (3 of 7) [CRLR-183/2008] trial. Charges were framed against the accused petitioner. The accused denied the same and claimed for trial. During the course of trial, a compromise was arrived at between the parties on 21.06.2003 for the offence under Section 337 IPC which was attested and on that basis, the accused petitioner was acquitted for the offence under Section 337 IPC and he was tried for the remaining offence i.e. under Section 279 IPC and 304-A IPC and Section 39/192 of M. V. Act. After conclusion of trial, the trial court passed judgment and order dated 02.03.2007 convicting and sentencing him for the offence under Sections 279 and 304-A IPC but acquitted him for the offence under Section 39/192 of the M.V. Act. Thereafter, the petitioner filed an appeal and the appellate court vide its judgment dated 19.12.2017 dismissed the appeal and affirmed the judgment dated 02.03.2007 passed by the trial court. 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 25 years of age at the time of incident and now he is around 52 years old and facing agony of trial for the past about 27 years; accused- [2025:RJ-JP:39496] (4 of 7) [CRLR-183/2008] 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 more than three months and there is no previous conviction recorded against the accused-petitioner, compromise has been arrived between the parties, 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 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. [2025:RJ-JP:39496] (5 of 7) [CRLR-183/2008] Criminal Revision Petition No. 972 of 2006) decided on 08.07.2024. 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 affirmed 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 learned counsel for the parties; precedent law on the issue; accused-petitioner, who was only 25 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 he remained incarcerated for some time after passing of the judgment, and no [2025:RJ-JP:39496] (6 of 7) [CRLR-183/2008] 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 him 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…” 12. Consequently, the judgments dated 19.12.2007 and 02.03.2007 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 awarded to the accused-petitioner by the trial court and affirmed by the appellate court is modified to the extent that sentence awarded to the [2025:RJ-JP:39496] (7 of 7) [CRLR-183/2008] accused-petitioner for the offence under Sections 279 & 304-A of I.P.C. 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 discharged. 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 Anu/3