[2025:RJ-JD:48710]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT

JODHPUR

S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 698/2009

Chandan Singh S/o Bhanwar Singh, aged about 27 years,

resident of Delwara, District Rajasamand.

----Petitioner

Versus

State of Rajasthan

----Respondent

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Ravindra Singh

For Respondent(s) : Mr. S.S. Rathore, PP

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI CHIRANIA

Order

1. Date of conclusion of Arguments 15.09.2025 2. Date on which the judgment was reserved. 15.09.2025

3. Whether the full judgment or only operative Full

part is pronounced.

4. Date of Pronouncement 15.12.2025

1. This criminal revision petition under Section 397 read with 401 Cr.P.C. has been preferred against the judgment dated 05.06.2009 passed by the learned Additional Session Judge, Nathdwara, District Rajsamand in Criminal Appeal No. 22/2007, whereby the judgment dated 18.09.2007 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Nathdwara, District Rajsamand, in Criminal Original Case No. 65/2005 was upheld. The petitioner was

convicted and sentenced vide order dated 18.09.2007 as below:

Conviction for offences under Sentences

Sections:

279 IPC 3 months’ S.I and a fine of Rs.

500/- and in default of payment

of fine, to further undergo 15

days’ S.I.

304-A IPC 2 years’ S.I and a fine of

Rs.1,000/- and in default of

payment of fine, to further undergo 1 month’s S.I.

2. Succinctly stated, facts of the case are that on 11.05.2005 at around 6:45 PM, the petitioner was driving a Jeep bearing registration No. RJ-30-T-0376 on a public road near Palera Talab, Delwara. It is alleged that while attempting to climb a slope, the jeep could not ascend. The petitioner, acting in a rash and negligent manner, suddenly reversed the jeep at a high speed without taking due care and caution. In the process, the reversing jeep hit an elderly lady, Smt. Shanti Devi, who was walking on the road behind it. The impact caused her to fall, and the jeep's tyre ran over her, resulting in grievous injuries. She was rushed to the hospital but succumbed to her injuries. Based on FIR No. 34/2005 dated 15.05.2005, lodged by Narayan Lal (PW-1), a case was registered under Sections 279 and 304-A of the Indian Penal Code.

3. Charge-sheet under Sections 279 & 304A IPC was submitted against the petitioner before the Trial Court, where charges were framed against the petitioner for the offences as stated above. The petitioner denied the charges and pleaded not guilty and thereby demanded to be tried on merits.

4. During the course of trial, the prosecution has examined as many as 13 witnesses in support of its case and exhibited 10 documents in supports of its case. Thereafter, explanation of the petitioner was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. wherein the petitioner denied his participation in the incident, though no evidences were produced in his defence.

5. After completion of trial, the learned Trial Judge, vide judgment dated 18.09.2007, convicted and sentenced the petitioner, as stated above.

6. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied by the judgment of conviction and sentence, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Appellate Court, however, the same was also rejected vide judgment dated 05.06.2009 and the judgment passed by the Trial Court was upheld.

7. The learned counsel for the petitioner, while not challenging the conviction entirely, earnestly urged for the leniency in the matter of the sentence. It was contended that the petitioner was about 27 years of age at the time of the incident and had no criminal antecedents.

8. It was argued that the petitioner is the sole breadwinner for his family, and that a custodial sentence at this stage would cause undue hardship to his dependents. The accident was not a result of a wilful act but rather a momentary error in judgment on a steep slope, and the petitioner had no intention to cause harm.

9. In the alternate, counsel for the petitioner prayed that, considering the long passage of time elapsed since the date of the incident, this Court may take a lenien