[2026:RJ-JP:376] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 1175/2007 Om Prakash S/o Bhanwar Lal, R/o Ward no. 6 near Jain Mandir, Keshavrai Patan, District Bundi ----Petitioner Versus State of Rajasthan through P.P. ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Ms. Priyanka Gaur Ms. Ashima Mathur Mr. Santosh Kumar Jain For Respondent(s) : Ms. Manju Dave, Addl. G.A. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BHUWAN GOYAL Order 07/01/2026 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 – Om Prakash against the Judgment and Order dated 11.10.2007 passed by Additional Sessions Judge no. 1, Bundi (Raj.) (hereinafter referred to as "appellate court") in Criminal Appeal No. 160/2007 (Om Prakash vs. State of Rajasthan) vide which criminal appeal filed by the accused- petitioner has been dismissed affirming the Judgment and Order dated 06.10.2005 passed by Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Keshavrai Patan, District Bundi (hereinafter referred to as "trial court") in Criminal Case no. 638/03 (State of Rajasthan vs. Om Prakash) whereby the trial court convicted the petitioner for the offence under Section 304-A of I.P.C. and sentenced him to undergo six months' rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of [2026:RJ-JP:376] (2 of 6) [CRLR-1175/2007] Rs. 3000/-, in default of payment of fine, to further undergo three months rigorous imprisonment. 2. Facts of the case in short are that Kalu Lal (PW-2) head constable, Police station, Keshavrai Patan has submitted an FIR at Police Station- Kapren, to the effect that on 12.08.1994 around 12 o' clock in the night when he along with other police personnels was going to Railway station, Kapren and reached near petrol pump, he saw a mini truck being driven by its driver rashly in a zig- zag manner came from back side and passed them, which fell in the roadside drain ahead of the said petrol pump. When the police personnel went at the place of incident they saw that driver- Om Prakash was standing on the road in a haphazard manner, mini truck was lying opposite in the drain and two persons who were sitting in the cabin of the mini truck had died. On the basis of said report, the Police registered FIR No. 66/94 for the offence under Section 304-A IPC and investigation was commenced. After completing the investigation, the police submitted the challan against accused-petitioner for the offence under Section 304-A of IPC before the concerned court. Substance of allegations were read over to the accused-petitioner, who denied the same and claimed for trial. After conclusion of trial, the trial court passed judgment and order dated 06.10.2005 convicting and sentencing the accused-petitioner for the offence under Section 304-A IPC as mentioned above. Thereafter, the petitioner filed an appeal and the appellate court vide its judgment dated 11.10.2007 dismissed the appeal and affirmed the judgment dated 06.10.2005 passed by the trial court. Hence, this [2026:RJ-JP:376] (3 of 6) [CRLR-1175/2007] 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 1994 i.e. around 31 years ago; accused-petitioner was 28 years of age at the time of incident and now he is around 59 years old and facing agony of trial for the past about 31 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 about 2 months and 11 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 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. [2026:RJ-JP:376] (4 of 6) [CRLR-1175/2007] 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 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 [2026:RJ-JP:376] (5 of 6) [CRLR-1175/2007] 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 28 years of age at the time of incident, has already suffered the agony of protracted trial, spanning over a period of more than 31 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 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.” [2026:RJ-JP:376] (6 of 6) [CRLR-1175/2007] 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 11.10.2007 and 06.10.2005 passed by both the courts below qua conviction of the accused-petitioner for the offence under Section 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 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/86