[2026:RJ-JP:28644] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 369/2007 CNR: RJHC020144392007 | URN: CRLR / 692U / 2007 Bheemraj S/o Sh Kishan Lal, R/o Dabariya, P.S. Atru, Dist. Baran ----Accused/Petitioner Versus State of Rajasthan through PP ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Ranvijay Singh for Mr. Saurav Mehta For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vijay Singh Yadav, Addl.G.A. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BHUWAN GOYAL Judgment 24/07/2026 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 –Bheemraj against Judgment and Order dated 17.03.2007 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Chhabra, District Baran (hereinafter referred to as "appellate court") in Criminal Appeal No. 21/2004 (Bheemraj vs. State of Rajasthan) vide which criminal appeal filed by the accused-petitioner has been partly allowed and while setting aside the conviction & sentence of the petitioner for the offence under section 323 of I.P.C., as awarded by the trial Court, affirmed the judgment dated 26.05.2004 passed by the trial Court in criminal case No. 466/2003(190/96), by which the trial Court convicted the petitioner for the offence under Section 326 IPC and sentencing him to undergo four years' R.I. with a fine of Rs. 2000/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo 6 months' R.I. 2. Facts of the case in short are that on 7.02.1996 at around 09.40 PM, the complainant- Hariballabh submitted a Parcha Bayan [2026:RJ-JP:28644] (2 of 6) [CRLR-369/2007] (Ex. P/1)in Atru Hospital to the effect that around 5.00 PM, he was going to his agricultural field alongside the way. The accused- petitioner laid some bushes in order to the block the way. Upon being asked as to why was he obstructing the way, the petitioner got annoyed and attacked him with a Dhariya, which resulted into injury on his head and blood oozed. When the complainant fell down, the petitioner's elder brother Durgalal rushed there and gave a lathi blow on his face due to which blood came out of his mouth. The petitioner's younger brother Ramdayal also gave fist blow and thereafter the complainant became unconscious. On the basis of said parcha bayan, police registered FIR No. 47/96 at Police Station Atru, District Baran for the offence under Sections 307, 323 & 34 IPC. After completing the investigation, the police submitted challan for the offences under Sections 307, 326, 325, 323 & 34 of IPC. The court concerned took cognizance. The court concerned committed the case to the court of Sessions, from where it was transferred to the Additional District Judge, Chhabra. Thereafter, vide order dated 17.10.1997 the accused persons were discharged for the offence under Section 307 of I.P.C. and the case was transferred under Section 228 Cr.P.C to Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chhabra for trial. The trial Court framed charges against the accused persons for the offences under Sections 326/34, 325/34 & 323 of I.P.C. The accused petitioners denied the charges and claimed for trial. After conclusion of trial, the trial court passed the judgment dated 26.05.2004 and while acquitting the accused persons Durgalal @ Durga Shanker and Ramdayal for the offence under section 326/34, 325/34 and 323 [2026:RJ-JP:28644] (3 of 6) [CRLR-369/2007] IPC and accused person Bheemraj for the offence under Section 325/34, convicted and sentenced the petitioner Bheemraj for the offence under sections 326 & 323 of IPC. Thereafter, the petitioner filed an appeal and the appellate court vide its judgment dated 17.03.2007 partly allowed the appeal and while setting aside the conviction and sentence of the petitioner for the offence under section 323 IPC, affirmed the judgment dated 26.05.2004 passed by the trial Court convicting and sentencing the petitioner for the offence under section 326 of IPC, as mentioned above. 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 wish 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 1996 i.e. around 30 years ago; accused-petitioner was 25 years of age at the time of incident and now he is around 55 years old and facing agony of trial for the past about 30 years; co-accused Durgalal & Ramlal have already acquitted of offences alleged against them by the trial court and no appeal has been filed by the State or complainant challenging their acquittal; accused- petitioner who is sole bread earner in the family, belongs to poor strata of society and remained in police and judicial custody for a [2026:RJ-JP:28644] (4 of 6) [CRLR-369/2007] period of 4 months and 16 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. 6. Learned counsel for the accused-petitioner has relied upon the judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of Naib Singh vs. State of Punjab reported in AIR 1986 Supreme Court 2192 and the judgments rendered by a coordinate Bench of this Court in the cases of Tej Singh & Ors. vs. State of Rajasthan through PP (S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 283/2007) decided on 16.07.2025, Jagdish Narayan Vs. State of Rajasthan (S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 407/2004) decided on 15.05.2024, Shankar lal & Ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan (S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 431/2002) decided on 05.07.2022 and Nemi Chand Vs. State of Rajasthan (S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 654/2002) decided on 29.06.2022. 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 modified by the appellate court cannot be said to be disproportionate, therefore, no interference in sentence is warranted in this case. [2026:RJ-JP:28644] (5 of 6) [CRLR-369/2007] 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 courts below qua conviction of 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 around 30 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, 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:- [2026:RJ-JP:28644] (6 of 6) [CRLR-369/2007] 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 26.05.2004 and 17.03.2007 passed by both the courts below qua conviction of the accused-petitioner for the offence under Section 326 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 accused- petitioner for the offence under Section 326 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 6/ Gaurav