[2026:RJ-JP:11707] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 75/2006 Vishram S/O Shri Jhunta Ram, Resident of Dubbi. Tehsil Bandikui, District Dausa (Raj.) (At present in Central Jail, Jaipur) ---- Accused/Petitioner Versus The State of Rajasthan, through P.P. ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. S.S. Sunda For Respondent(s) : 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 16.01.2006 passed by Sessions Judge, Jaipur District, Jaipur (hereinafter re- ferred to as learned 'Appellate Court') in Criminal Appeal No.56/2001 filed by petitioner-Vishram whereby learned Appellate Court rejected the appeal filed on behalf of the revisionist-peti- tioner and the order dated 02.07.2002 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, in First Class, Bassi, Jaipur District, Jaipur (hereinafter referred to as learned 'trial Court') in Criminal Case No.48/95 was upheld, whereby learned trial Court convicted and sentenced the revisionist-petitioner as under:- Offences punishable under Section Sentence Fine Sentence in de- fault of fine 279 IPC 6 Months' S.I. - - 304-A IPC 2 Years' S.I. - - 3/181 M.V. Act - Rs.500/- 15 days' S.I. [2026:RJ-JP:11707] (2 of 4) [CRLR-75/2006] 2. Learned counsel for the revisionist-petitioner submits that the sentence awarded against the revisionist-petitioner was sus- pended by the Coordinate Bench of of this Court vide order dated 20.01.2006 passed in S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Appeal No.10/2006 (S.O.S.) filed in this petition. Learned counsel further submits that the revisionist-petitioner surrendered himself on 16.01.2006 and was released from judicial custody on 21.01.2006, therefore, he has served the sentence for about 6 days. Learned counsel also submits that the incident is said to be occurred in the year 1995. The learned trial Court completed the trial and passed the judgment in the year 2002 and learned Appel- late Court decided the appeal vide order dated 16.01.2006 and this petition is pending since 2006. Therefore, the revisionist-peti- tioner is suffering the agony of trial, appeal and this revision peti- tion for almost last 30 years. Learned counsel for the revisionist- petitioner further submits that now the age of the revisionist-peti- tioner is between 55 to 60 years, therefore, a liberal view be taken in deciding this petition. 3. After arguing for some time, learned counsel makes a limited prayer that without emphasizing on merits/demerits of the case and while maintaining the conviction awarded against the revision- ist-petitioner, the sentence may be reduced to the period already undergone by him. 4. On the other hand, learned Deputy Government Advocate has opposed the contention raised by learned counsel for the revi- sionist-petitioner and submits that in this matter, the charge against the revisionist-petitioner is of causing death of a 16 year [2026:RJ-JP:11707] (3 of 4) [CRLR-75/2006] old boy 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 mate- rial available on record. 6. Admittedly, the incident in this case occurred in the year 1995, therefore, the revisionist-petitioner is suffering the agony of trial, appeal and this revision petition for last almost 30 years. He has remained in judicial custody for about 6 days. 7. 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 sentenc- ing an accused on proof of crime. The courts have evolved certain principles: twin objective of the sentencing policy is deterrence and cor- rection. What sentence would meet the ends of justice depends on the facts and circum- stances 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 pe- riod and the case is pending for a pretty long time for which he had suffered both financial hardship and mental agony and also consider- ing 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...” 8. Therefore, this this Court deems it proper to have a liberal view against the revisionist-petitioner in awarding the sentence. [2026:RJ-JP:11707] (4 of 4) [CRLR-75/2006] 9. Accordingly, this revision petition is partly allowed. While maintaining the conviction of the revisionist-petitioner for the of- fences punishable under Sections 279, 304-A of IPC and Section 3/181 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, the sentence awarded for the period of 6 months for offence punishable under Section 279 of IPC and period of 2 years for offence punishable under Section 304-A IPC is reduced to the period already undergone. However, the revisionist-petitioner is ordered to pay a fine of Rs.1000/- for the offence punishable under Section 279 of IPC and Rs.5000/- for the offence punishable under Section 304 of IPC and the fine of Rs.500/- for the offence punishable under Section 3/181 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The revisionist-petitioner is directed to deposit the fine of Rs.6500/- 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 the learned trial Court and upheld by the 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 sur- render, the bail bonds are discharged. 12. Record of the learned trial Court be sent immediately for compliance. 13. All pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of. (ASHUTOSH KUMAR),J TANISHA /4