[2025:RJ-JP:36707]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 664/2006 Ram Lal son of Shri Ram Karan Jat, aged about 20 years, resident of Vatika Sanganer, District Jaipur (Rajasthan)

----Petitioner Versus State of Rajasthan through Public Prosecutor ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Jitendra Choudhary, Advocate Mr. Sarthak Choubey, Advocate Mr. Gaurav Sharma, Advocate &

Ms. Kamini Pareek, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. Amit Gupta, Public Prosecutor HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD KUMAR BHARWANI

Order

10/09/2025 Instant revision petition has been filed on behalf of accused/

petitioner under Section 397 r/w Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 being aggrieved by judgment dt.21.06.2006 passed by Court of ld. Sessions Judge, Tonk, in Criminal Appeal No.69/2005 whereby the appeal filed by petitioner has been dismissed & the judgment dt.06.12.2005 passed by Court of ld. Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Niwai District Tonk, in Criminal Case No.(353/1998) 95/2003 whereby the petitioner has been convicted for offences punishable under Sections 279 & 304-A of I.P.C. & sentenced to undergo six months simple imprisonment with fine of Rs.500/- and in for offence under Section 304-A of I.P.C. sentenced to undergo two years simple imprisonment with fine of Rs.500/- and in default thereof Submissions of learned counsel appearing for the accused-

petitioner are that there are material contradictions & inconsistencies in the statements of prosecution witnesses. The sentence, so awarded to petitioner was, however, suspended by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide its order dt.17.08.2006. The petitioner deserves some leniency as he has been constrained to undergo the ordeal of trial proceedings since the year, 1998 thereby suffering protracted litigation for an inordinate period of approximately 27 years. Further submission is that ld. Counsel shall not assail the conviction of the petitioner and confines his arguments to the alternative prayer of reduction of sentence awarded by ld. trial Court to the period already undergone by him. Hence, this petition be partly allowed & the sentence awarded to petitioner be reduced to the period already undergone by him.

On the other hand, learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the State, has submitted that there is no illegality or infirmity in the impugned judgments whatsoever and, therefore, the same do not call for any interference in exercise of revisional jurisdiction by this Court. However, he did not seriously dispute the submission regarding reduction of sentence.

Heard learned counsel for the rival parties at length.

Perused the impugned judgments and the entire record of the case.

Since the present revision petition against conviction is not pressed and after perusing the material nothing is noticed which requires interference in the finding of guilt reached by ld. Trial Court and affirmed by the appellate Court, this Court does not wish to interfere in the judgment of conviction. Accordingly, the judgment of conviction is maintained.

So far as the question of quantum of sentence is concerned, it is pertinent to note here that in the present case, incident pertains to the year 1998. The petitioner has already suffered the agony of protracted litigation, spanning over a period around 27 years and has been in the corridors of the Court for this prolonged period. He remained incarcerated for some time, hence, the case of the petitioner deserves to be dealt with leniency. Thus, guided by the judicial pronouncements made by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the cases of Alister Anthony Pareira Vs. State of Maharashtra, (2012) 2 SCC 648 and Haripada Das Vs. State of West Bengal, (1998) 9 SCC 678 and considering the facts & circumstances of the case, status of the petitioner in the society and the fact that he faced financial hardship and he had to go through mental agony, this Court is of the view that the ends of justice would be met, if sentence