[2026:RJ-JD:4219]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 699/2018 Narendra Singh, S/o Singarasingh, R/o Saralkhui, Police Thana Tanda, Distt. Hoshiyarpur (Punjab) (Lodged In Central Jail, Bikaner)

----Petitioner Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through P.p.

----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Sunil Bishnoi For Respondent(s) : Mr. Surendra Bishnoi, AGA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FARJAND ALI

Order

14/01/2026

1. The present criminal revision petition has been preferred under Sections 397 and 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure against the judgment dated 26.10.2015 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge No.4, Bikaner in Criminal Appeal No.2/2014, whereby the criminal appeal preferred by the petitioner was dismissed and the judgment dated 10.02.2006 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Clas, Loonkaransar, Bikaner in Criminal Case No.170/1996 was affirmed. Vide the judgment of the trial court, the petitioner was convicted for the offences under Sections 279 and 304-A of the Indian Penal Code and was sentenced to 6 months’ simple imprisonment with a fine of ₹250/- and in default thereof to further undergo simple imprisonment, for the offence under Section 279 IPC, and one year’s simple imprisonment with a fine of ₹1000/- and in default thereof to further undergo simple imprisonment, for the offence under Section 304-A IPC.

2. At the outset, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner fairly submits that the petitioner does not press the revision petition insofar as it relates to the finding of guilt and confines his challenge only to the quantum of sentence. It is submitted that the petitioner is presently 66 years of age, is a first-time offender, and no other criminal case has ever been registered against him either prior or subsequent to the present incident. It is further submitted that the petitioner is a poor person, suffering from age- related ailments, and has already remained incarcerated for some period during the course of trial as well as after passing of the judgment in appeal. It is urged that the incident is an old one, the petitioner has remained under the shadow of criminal proceedings for a long number of years, and no useful purpose would be served by sending him back to prison at this stage of life. A prayer is, therefore, made for reduction of the sentence to the period already undergone.

3. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the revision petition and supported the judgments passed by the courts below. However, it is not disputed that the petitioner is a first offender and that no other criminal case has been registered against him.

4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have carefully perused the record.

5. Since the petitioner has consciously chosen not to assail the conviction, and upon an independent examination of the judgments passed by the learned trial court as well as the learned appellate court, this Court does not find any perversity, illegality or jurisdictional error in the appreciation of evidence leading to the finding of guilt. Accordingly, the conviction of the petitioner for the offences under Sections 279 and 304-A of the Indian Penal Code is hereby maintained.

6. The issue that now falls for consideration is with regard to the quantum of sentence.

7. The record reveals that the petitioner is presently 66 years of age and that the occurrence in question is of considerable antiquity being related to year 1996. It is not in dispute that the petitioner is a first-time offender and that no other criminal case has ever been registered against him either prior or subsequent to the present incident. The material on record further shows that the petitioner has already undergone incarceration for some period during the course of trial as well as after passing of the judgment in appeal. It has also been brought on record that the petitioner is a poor person, suffering from age-related ailments, and that he has faced financial