[2026:RJ-JP:11749] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 1502/2008 Sampat Singh S/o Khinv Singh, Resident of Malpur, Police Station Ratangarh, District Churu (at present lodged in District Jail, Sikar) ----Accused/Petitioner Versus State of Rajasthan through Public Prosecutor ----Respondent For Petitioner : Mr. Tanmay Dhand, Adv. For Respondent : Mr. Devi Singh, Dy.G.A. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHUTOSH KUMAR Order 19/03/2026 1. The instant criminal revision petition has been filed by the revisionist-petitioner challenging the judgment dated 20.11.2008 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge No.2, Sikar (hereinafter referred to as learned 'Appellate Court') in Criminal Appeal No.12/2007, whereby learned Appellate Court rejected the appeal filed on behalf of the revisionist-petitioner and the order dated 09.01.2007 passed by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Fatehpur Shekhawati, Sikar (hereinafter referred to as learned 'trial Court') in Criminal Case No.96/2003 was upheld, whereby learned trial Court convicted and sentenced the revisionist-petitioner as under:- Offences punishable under Sections Sentence Fine (in Rs.) Sentence in default of fine 279 IPC 6 Months' S.I. 500/- 5 Days' S.I. 304-A IPC 1 Year's S.I. 2,500/- 1 Month’s S.I. 134/187 M.V. Act, 1988 1 Month’s S.I. 100/- 1 day’s S.I. [2026:RJ-JP:11749] (2 of 4) [CRLR-1502/2008] 2. Learned counsel for the revisionist-petitioner submits that the sentence, so awarded to the revisionist-petitioner, was suspended by the Coordinate Bench of this Court vide its order dated 05.12.2008 passed in S.B. Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.326/2008. Learned counsel also submits that the revisionist- petitioner surrendered himself on 20.11.2008 and was released from judicial custody on 05.12.2008. Therefore, he has served the sentence for about 16 days. Learned counsel also submits that the incident is said to be occurred in the year 2003. Learned trial Court completed the trial and passed the judgment in the year 2007; learned Appellate Court decided the appeal vide order dated 20.11.2008 and this petition is pending since 2008, therefore, the revisionist-petitioner is suffering the agony of trial, appeal and this revision petition for almost last 23 years. Learned counsel for the revisionist-petitioner further submits that now, age of the revisionist-petitioner is between 45 to 50 years, therefore, a liberal view be taken in deciding this petition. 3. After arguing to some extent, learned counsel for the revisionist-petitioner makes only a limited prayer that without emphasizing on merits/demerits of the case and while maintaining the conviction awarded against the petitioner, the sentence awarded to the present revisionist-petitioner may be reduced to the period already undergone by him. 4. Per contra, learned Deputy Government Advocate appearing on behalf of the respondent-State opposed the prayer made on behalf of the revisionist-petitioner and in the present case, the charges levelled against the revisionist-petitioner is with regard to [2026:RJ-JP:11749] (3 of 4) [CRLR-1502/2008] causing death of 12 years old girl by rash and negligent driving, therefore, the revisionist-petitioner is not entitled to get any liberal view from this Court. 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 6. Admittedly, the incident in this case occurred in the year 2003, therefore, the revisionist-petitioner is suffering the agony of trial, appeal and this revision petition for last almost 23 years and also, he has remained in judicial custody for about 16 days. 7. This Court is conscious of the judgments rendered in the cases of 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 eachh 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...” [2026:RJ-JP:11749] (4 of 4) [CRLR-1502/2008] 8. Therefore, this Court deems it proper to have a liberal view against the revisionist-petitioner in awarding the sentence. 9. Accordingly, this revision petition is partly allowed. While maintaining the conviction of the petitioner for the offences punishable under Sections 279, 304-A of IPC and Section 134/187 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, the sentence awarded to the revisionist-petitioner is hereby reduced to the period already undergone by him. However, the revisionist-petitioner is ordered to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- for the offence punishable under Section 279 of IPC; Rs.5,000/- for the offence punishable under Section 304-A of IPC and Rs.500/- for the offence punishable under Section 134/187 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The revisionist-petitioner is directed to deposit the fine i.e. Rs.6,100/- within a period of two months from today, otherwise this petition shall be deemed to be dismissed and the revisionist-petitioner shall serve the sentence awarded by learned trial Court and upheld by learned Appellate Court. 10. If the fine is so deposited the same shall be paid to the legal heirs of the deceased. 11. The revisionist-petitioner is on bail thus, he need not to surrender and the bail bonds stands discharged. 12. Record of the trial Court be sent back immediately for compliance. 13. All pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of. (ASHUTOSH KUMAR),J AARZOO ARORA /19