The court modified the sentence for the accused-petitioner to the period already undergone, emphasizing the need for justice considering the lengthy trial and personal circumstances.

ORDER :

BHUWAN GOYAL, J.

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- Raja Ram against Judgment and Order dated 17.06.2006 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Kotputli, Jaipur, District Jaipur (hereinafter referred to as "appellate court") in Criminal Appeal No. 04/2003 (Raja Ram vs. State of Rajasthan) vide which criminal appeal filed by the accused-petitioner against the Judgment and Order of Sentence dated 24.01.2003 passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kotputli (hereinafter referred to as "trial court") convicting and sentencing him for the offences under sections 279 & 304-A I.P.C and Section 134/187 of Motor Vehicle Act, was dismissed. The sentence awarded to the petitioner is as under:-

2. Facts of the case in short are that on the basis of the written report submitted by complainant – Brij Mohan Sharma (P.W. 4) with respect to an incident, which occurred on 15.06.2000, wherein allegation of plying trola in rash & negligent manner resulting into death of Subhash was leveled, F.I.R. No. 383/2000 was registered at Police Station Kotputli for the offences under Sections 279 & 304-A of I.P.C. During investigation, police added Section 134/187 of the Motor Vehicle Act. After conclusion of investigation, police submitted charge-sheet against accused- petitioner for the aforesaid offences. The trial court framed charges for the offences under Sections 279 & 304-A of I.P.C. & Section 134/187 of the Motor Vehicle Act and trial was commenced. After conclusion of trial, the trial court passed judgment and order of sentence dated 24.01.2003 convicting and sentencing him for the offences under Sections 279 & 304-A of I.P.C. & Section 134/187 of the Motor Vehicle Act, as stated above. Aggrieved by judgment of conviction and sentence dated 24.01.2003, accused-petitioner preferred an appeal before the learned appellate court, which passed the Judgment & Order dated 17.06.2006 dismissing the appeal and affirming the judgment of 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 wish 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 2000 i.e. more than 24 years ago; accused-petitioner was 21 years of age at the time of incident and now he is around 45 years old and facing agony of trial since last 24 years; accused- petitioner who is sole bread earner in the family, belongs to poor strata of society and remained in custody for the period of more than 4 months 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. 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 Petit