[2026:RJ-JP:626]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 576/2007 Deewan Singh S/o Shri Ram R/o Kheretpura Police Station Malpura, District Karauli ----Petitioner Versus State of Rajasthan through PP ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. B. M. Sharma, Adv.

For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vijay Singh Yadav, Addl.G.A.

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BHUWAN GOYAL

Order

08/01/2026

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 –Deewan Singh against the Judgment and Order dated 29.11.2006 passed by Additional Sessions Judge No. 1, Bayana, Bharatpur (hereinafter referred to as "appellate court") in Criminal Appeal No. 05/2004 (Deewan Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan) vide which criminal appeal filed by the accused- petitioner has been dismissed affirming the Judgment and Order dated 20.05.2004 passed by Judicial Magistrate, Bayana Bharatpur (hereinafter referred to as "trial court") in Criminal Case No. 13/1995 (State of Rajasthan vs. Deewan Singh) whereby the trial court convicted the petitioner for the offence under Sections 279, 304-A I.P.C. and Section 134/187 of M.V. Act and sentenced him for the offence under Section 304-A IPC for six months' rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default of payment of fine, to further undergo one month's simple imprisonment.

2. Facts of the case in short are that on 24.09.1995 the complainant- Ishwari Prasad(PW-3) submitted a Tehriri report (Ex.P-1) at Police Station- Gadhi, Baajna to the effect that on 24.02.1995 around 11:30-11:45 AM when he was returning after taking bath from the Hand-Pump, at that time one person was going from Bayana to Basedi. A truck bearing registration No.9516 came from that person’s backside, hit him and ran away. On the basis of said report, the Police registered FIR No. 09/1995 for the offence under Sections 279 and 337 IPC and investigation was commenced. After completing the investigation, the police submitted the challan against accused-petitioner for the offence under Sections 279, 304-A IPC and Sections 134/187 M. V. Act before the concerned court. Substance of allegations were read over to the accused-petitioner, who denied the same and claimed for trial. After conclusion of trial, the trial court passed judgment and order dated 20.05.2004 convicting and sentencing the accused-petitioner for the offence as mentioned above. Thereafter, the petitioner filed an appeal and the appellate court vide its judgment dated 29.11.2006 dismissed the appeal and affirmed the judgment and order dated 20.05.2004 passed by 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 want 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 1995 i.e. around 30 years ago; accused-petitioner was about 30 years of age at the time of incident and now he is around 60 years old and facing agony of trial for the past about 30 years; accused- petitioner who is sole bread earner in the family, belongs to poor strata of society and remained in police and judicial custody for a period of about 49 days 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 Appe