[2026:RJ-JP:2007] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 763/2008 Nirbhay S/o Ghamandi, R/o Dumriya, Tehsil Roopwas, District Bharatpur ----Petitioner Versus State of Rajasthan ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Sanjay Mehrishi Mr. Rakesh Saini Mr. Timan Singh For Respondent(s) : Ms. Manju Dave, Addl. G.A. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BHUWAN GOYAL Order 16/01/2026 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 – Nirbhay against the Judgment and Order dated 14.07.2008 passed by Additional Sessions Judge no. 2, Bayana, Bharatpur (hereinafter referred to as "appellate court") in Criminal Appeal No. 44/02(04/2001) (Roshan Singh & Ors. vs. State of Rajasthan) vide which criminal appeal filed by the accused-persons has been partly allowed and while setting aside the judgment and order dated 19.01.2001 passed by the trial court in criminal case no. 38/95 acquitted the co-accused persons Roshan Singh, Samander Singh, Atar Singh, Himmat Singh and Manohar Singh for the offence under Sections 325/149 IPC and convicted them for the offence under Sections 323/149, 147, 341 IPC and instead of sentencing them, granted benefit of Section 4 [2026:RJ-JP:2007] (2 of 7) [CRLR-763/2008] of the Probation of Offenders Act, So far as accused petitioner Nirbhay Singh is concerned, he has been convicted and sentenced for the offence under Sections 325, 323/149, 147, 341 IPC as under:- Offence Sentence awarded by the trial court to the Accused persons namely Roshan Singh, Samander Singh, Atar Singh, Himat Singh, Manohar Singh and Nirbhay Singh Sentence awarded by the appellate court to the accused-petitioner Nirbhay Singh under Section 147,323 IPC to undergo 1 year S.I. For the offence u/s 325 IPC:- to undergo 2 years S.I. with fine of Rs.2000/-, in default of payment of fine, to further undergo 1 month S.I. under Section 325/149 IPC to undergo 2 years S.I. with fine of Rs.2,000/-, in default of payment of fine, to further undergo 1 month S.I. For the offence u/s 147,323/149 IPC:- to undergo one year S.I. ---- ---- For the offence u/s 341 IPC:- to undergo one month S.I. 2. Facts of the case in short are that on 24.01.1995, complainant Niroti (PW-2) submitted a parcha bayan to the effect that on 24.01.1995 around 8.00 AM when he was going from the house to Sirondh to work on the mines of Govind and Bhagwan Singh and reached on Nallah situated in between Dumriya and Churari, in the mustard agricultural field of Gajendra, accused persons armed with lathis encircled him and gave him lathi blows. Upon hearing complainant's scream, his daughter who was working in the nearby fields rushed to rescue him, but the accused persons also gave lathi blow to her. Then Govind, [2026:RJ-JP:2007] (3 of 7) [CRLR-763/2008] Bhagwan Singh, Sohan lal and Mahaveer came there and rescued them. On the basis said parcha bayan, F.I.R. No. 16/95 was registered at Police Station Roopwas, District Bharatpur for the offence under sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 341 IPC and investigation was commenced. After investigation, police submitted charge-sheet against the accused persons for the offence under Sections 147, 149, 323, 341, 325 of IPC before the concerned court. Charges were framed against the accused persons for the offence under Sections 147, 323/149, 341, 325/149 IPC, who denied the same and claimed for trial. The prosecution produced witnesses. The statement of accused- persons were recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. After conclusion of trial, the trial court passed judgment and order dated 19.01.2001 convicting the accused persons for the offence Sections 147, 323, 325/149 IPC and sentenced them as indicated above. Thereafter, the petitioner filed an appeal and the appellate court vide its judgment and order dated 14.07.2008 partly allowed the appeal, set-aside the judgment dated 19.01.2001 passed by the trial court acquitted the co-accused persons Roshan Singh, Samander Singh, Atar Singh, Himmat Singh and Manohar Singh for the offence under Sections 325/149 IPC and convicted them for the offence under Sections 323/149, 147, 341 IPC and instead of sentencing them, extended the benefit of probation under Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act. So far as accused petitioner Nirbhay Singh is concerned, he has been convicted and sentenced for the offence under Section 325, 147, 323/149 and [2026:RJ-JP:2007] (4 of 7) [CRLR-763/2008] 341 IPC, as indicated 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 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 1995 i.e. around 30 years ago; accused-petitioner was 32 years of age at the time of incident and now he is around 62 years old and facing agony of trial for the past about 30 years; 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 period of 28 days and there is no previous conviction recorded against the accused-petitioner. He further submits that all the other co-accused persons have been extended benefit of probation under section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, therefore, 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 rendered by a coordinate Bench of this Court in the cases of Bhanwar Lal vs. State of Rajasthan (S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 197/1989) decided on 17.05.2013 and Devi Lal [2026:RJ-JP:2007] (5 of 7) [CRLR-763/2008] & Ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan (S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 1090/2004) decided on 27.03.2024. 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 modified 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 judgment passed by the appellate court 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 court below. This Court does not wish to interfere in the judgment passed by court below qua conviction of the accused-petitioner for the offence under sections 325, 147, 323/149 and 341 IPC. Accordingly, the judgment passed by the court below qua conviction of the accused-petitioner is maintained. 10. As far as quantum of sentence is concerned, after perusing judgment and order impugned, considering the submissions of learned counsel for the parties; precedent law on the issue; accused-petitioner, who was 32 years of age at the time of incident, has already suffered the agony of protracted trial, spanning over a period of more than 30 years and remained [2026:RJ-JP:2007] (6 of 7) [CRLR-763/2008] incarcerated for some time, and no evidence regarding previous conviction of the accused-petitioner is produced on record and all the other co-accused persons have given benefit of probation, 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 locality 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 judgment and order dated 14.07.2008 passed by the appellate court qua conviction of the accused- petitioner for the offence under Sections 325, 323/149, 147 & 341 IPC is affirmed but the sentence awarded to the accused- [2026:RJ-JP:2007] (7 of 7) [CRLR-763/2008] petitioner 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 be cancelled. 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 Gaurav/96