SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Online)(Raj) 18403

HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN (JAIPUR BENCH)
BHUWAN GOYAL
RAM SINGH – Appellant
Versus
STATE – Respondent
CRLR / 1263 / 2008



[2025:RJ-JP:36415]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 1263/2008 Ram Singh S/o Prabhu Singh, Resident of Har Sahai ji Ka Katla, Sahar, Sawaimadhopur, Police Station Kotwali, Sawaimadhopur ----Petitioner (At present confined in Distt. Jail, Sawaimadhopur)

Versus The State of Rajasthan ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Tarun Jain For Respondent(s) : Mr. Jitendra Singh Rathore, AGA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BHUWAN GOYAL

Order

09/09/2025

1. Learned Additional Government Advocate has submitted the report dated 27.08.2025 sent by S.H.O, Police Station Rawanjana Dungar District Sawai Madhopur.

2. As per report, sole petitioner is alive.

3. Report is taken on record.

4. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, revision petition is heard today.

5. The present revision petition under Section 397 read with Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, has been filed by the accused-petitioner- Ram Singh against Judgment and Order dated 14.10.2008 passed by Additional Sessions Judge(Fast Track), Sawai Madhopur (hereinafter referred to as "appellate court") in Criminal Appeal No. 37/2008 (Ram Singh vs. State of Rajasthan) vide which criminal appeal filed by the accused- petitioner against the Judgment and Order of Sentence dated 02.08.2005 passed by Judicial Magistrate First Class, Sawai Madhopur (hereinafter referred to as "trial court") in Criminal Regular Case no. 28/99 (State of Rajasthan vs. Ram Singh) convicting and sentencing him for the offences under sections 279, 337, 304-A & 338 IPC was dismissed. The sentence awarded to the petitioner is as under:-

6. Facts of the case in short are that on the basis of the parcha bayan of Ram Singh with respect to an incident occurred on 08.05.1998, wherein the allegation was that he being driver of commander Jeep of one Chandu Sharma bearing No. RJ-25-C1125 took Ghanshyam and his family members to Kota day before yesterday and while returning from there when he reached in between Juwad to Mui, the driver of matador No. RJ-09-G-885 plying it at high speed, rashly and negligently came from Sawaimadhopur side and hit there jeep due to which Ghanshaym, his wife and other family members received injuries and one Raju died in the incident, F.I.R. No. 42/98 was registered at Police Station Rawanjana Dungar District Sawai Madhopur for the offences under Section 279, 337 & 304A of I.P.C. After conclusion of investigation, police submitted charge-sheet against accused- petitioner for the offences under sections 279, 337, 338 & 304A of I.P.C.. The trial court framed charges for the aforesaid offences and trial was commenced. After conclusion of trial, the trial court passed judgment and order of sentence dated 02.08.2005 convicting and sentencing him for the offences under Sections 279, 337, 338 & 304A of I.P.C., as stated above. Aggrieved by judgment of conviction and sentence dated 02.08.2005, accused- petitioner preferred an appeal before the learned appellate court, which was dismissed by appellate court. Hence, this criminal revision petition has been preferred by the accused-petitioner.

7. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

8. 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.

9. Learned counsel for the accused-petitioner has submitted that incident in the present case took place way back in the year 1998 i.e. around 27 years ago; accused-petitioner was 24 years of age at the time of incident and now he is around 51 years old and facing agony of trial since last around 27 years; accused-petitioner who is sole bread earner in the family, belongs to poor strata of society and remained in custody for a period of twelve days and there is no previous conviction recorded against the accused- petitioner, therefore, he prays that en

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top