[2026:RJ-JP:27961] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 1350/2007 URN: CRLR / 2730U / 2007 Ramotar Yadav aged 38 years, S/o Shri Ram Sharan Yadav, R/o Village Balva-Ka-bas Tehsil, P.S. Bansoor, Distt. Alwar (Rajasthan) ----Petitioner Versus State of Rajasthan through P.P. ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Rakesh Kumar with Ms. Priyanka Chauhan For Respondent(s) : Mr. Shriram Dhakad Dy. G.A. with Ms. Neha Goyal HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BHUWAN GOYAL Judgment 21/07/2026 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 – Ramotar Yadav against the Judgment and Order dated 13.12.2007 passed by Additional Sessions Judge (Fast-Track) no. 2, Alwar (hereinafter referred to as "appellate court") in Criminal Appeal No. 9A/2007 (Ramotar Yadav vs. State of Rajasthan) vide which criminal appeal filed by the accused- petitioner has been dismissed and the judgment and order dated 11.05.2007 passed by Judicial Magistrate no. 1, Alwar (hereinafter referred to as "trial court") in Criminal Case no. 23/112/04 (State of Rajasthan vs. Ramotar Yadav) convicting and sentencing him [2026:RJ-JP:27961] (2 of 7) [CRLR-1350/2007] for the offence under Sections 279, 337, 338 and 304-A of I.P.C., as mentioned herein below, is maintained. offence sentence fine sentence in default on payment of fine u/s 279 IPC To undergo 6 Months S.I --- --- u/s 337 IPC To undergo 6 Months S.I --- --- u/s 338 IPC To undergo 6 Months S.I --- --- u/s 304-A IPC To undergo 6 months S.I --- --- (All sentences were ordered to run concurrently) 2. Facts of the case in short are that on 21.04.2004, complainant- Kavita Devi submitted a parcha bayan (Ex. P/9) to the effect that on that day, around 1.00 PM, Subhash, Kavita and Saroopi were going from Alwar to Chandoli on a Hero Honda CD Dawn. At about 2.00 PM, they reached near Chandoli and going in their left side. At that time, a Rajasthan Roadways bus having registration No. RJ 32 PO 228 being driven by its driver rashly and negligently and in a zig zag manner, was coming towards Alwar. On seeing the bus, driver of the motor cycle alighted it on pathway, despite that the bus driver hit the motorcycle at its front side, due to which they fell down and sustained internal injuries. On the basis of said report, the Police registered FIR No. 112/04 for the offence under Sections 279, 337 of I.P.C. and investigation was commenced. After investigation, the police submitted the challan against accused-petitioner for the offence under Sections [2026:RJ-JP:27961] (3 of 7) [CRLR-1350/2007] 279, 337 and 304-A IPC before court concerned. The trial court took cognizance for the offence under Sections 279, 337, 338 and 304-A IPC and read over the charges to the petitioner. The petitioner denied the same and claimed for trial. After conclusion of trial, the trial court passed judgment and order dated 11.05.2007 convicting and sentencing him for the offence under Sections 279, 337, 338 and 304-A IPC as indicated above. Thereafter, the petitioner filed an appeal before the appellate court and the appellate court vide its judgment dated 13.12.2007 dismissed the appeal and confirmed the judgment dated 11.05.2007 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 for the offence under Sections 279, 337, 338 and 304-A of IPC 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 2004 i.e. around 22 years ago; accused-petitioner was 33 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 22 years and remained in police and judicial custody for a period of 22 days and there is no previous conviction recorded against the accused-petitioner, therefore, he prays that ends of justice would meet if a lenient [2026:RJ-JP:27961] (4 of 7) [CRLR-1350/2007] 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. Criminal Revision Petition No. 972 of 2006) decided on 08.07.2024. 7. Per contra, learned Dy. 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 [2026:RJ-JP:27961] (5 of 7) [CRLR-1350/2007] passed by the courts below, sentence awarded by the trial court and confirmed by the appellate court cannot be said to be disproportionate, therefore, no interference 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. Accordingly, the judgments passed by the courts below regarding conviction of the accused-petitioner for the offence under Sections 279, 337, 338 and 304-A IPC 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 33 years of age at the time of incident, has already suffered the agony of protracted trial, spanning over a period of more than 22 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 [2026:RJ-JP:27961] (6 of 7) [CRLR-1350/2007] 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 13.12.2007 and 11.05.2007 passed by both the courts below qua conviction of the accused-petitioner for the offence under Sections 279, 337, 338 and 304-A IPC are affirmed but the quantum of sentence awarded to the accused-petitioner by the trial court and affirmed by the appellate court 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. [2026:RJ-JP:27961] (7 of 7) [CRLR-1350/2007] 14. A copy of this order along with records be sent to the trial court forthwith. (BHUWAN GOYAL),J 15/Ritu