Rajasthan High Court – Jodhpur
Yogesh Chandra Vyas vs State (2025:Rj-Jd:36859) on 13 August, 2025
[2025:RJ-JD:36859]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 422/2008
Yogesh Chandra Vyas S/o Mahesh Chandra, R/o Hanuman Pol,
Khambhat, Baroda (Gujarat).
(Lodged in Central Jail, Jodhpur)
----Petitioner
Versus
State of Rajasthan.
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Suresh Kumbhat
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Sriram Choudhary, P.P.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MUKESH RAJPUROHIT
Order
13/08/2025
1. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner
is alive.
1.1. Learned Public Prosecutor is not in a position to dispute the
above fact.
2. This criminal revision petition under Section 397 read with
Section 401 of Cr.P.C. has been preferred by the petitioner against
the judgment dated 28.04.2008 passed by learned Additional
Sessions Judge, Abu Road, District Sirohi (hereinafter to be
referred as ‘the appellate court’) in Criminal Appeal No.4/2006,
whereby the said appeal was dismissed and judgment dated
31.01.2006 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class,
Pindwara, District Sirohi (hereinafter to be referred as ‘the trial
court’) in Criminal Original Case No.104/1993 was upheld.
(Downloaded on 19/08/2025 at 09:31:44 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:36859] (2 of 4) [CRLR-422/2008]
2.1. The accused petitioner was convicted and sentenced vide
judgment dated 31.01.2006 passed by the learned trial court as
below :-
Conviction for the Sentence Awarded offences under Sections 279 of IPC 6 Months' Simple Imprisonment 304-A of IPC 2 Years' Simple Imprisonment
All the sentences were ordered to be run concurrently.
3. Briefly stated the facts of the present case are that on
01.03.1993 at 08:00 AM, a written report was lodged by
complainant – Govindram alleging that on that day at about 06:30
AM, when Kapila Ben was standing in front of his Marble Factory
preparing to cross the road, then a Car bearing No. GJ-N-6007,
came from the wrong direction and being driven rashly and
negligently by the petitioner, hit her and causing her death.
3.1. On the said written report, the FIR No.20/1993 was
registered at Police Station Pindwara, District Sirohi against the
petitioner and investigation was commenced.
3.2. After filing of the charge-sheet and upon completion of the
trial, the petitioner was convicted by the learned trial court for the
offences under Sections 279 and 304-A of IPC vide judgment
dated 31.01.2006 which was upheld by the learned appellate court
vide judgment dated 28.04.2008.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the
sentences so awarded to the petitioner were suspended by a
Coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 02.05.2008
passed in S.B. Criminal Misc. Application for Suspension of
Sentences No.78/2008.
(Downloaded on 19/08/2025 at 09:31:44 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:36859] (3 of 4) [CRLR-422/2008]
4.1. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that
the petitioner has undergone detention for some period and the
case is pending against him since 2008. Learned counsel for the
petitioner has also submitted that the petitioner is facing agony of
a long protracted trial and, therefore, without making any
interference on merits/conviction, the sentences awarded to the
present petitioner may be substituted with the period of sentences
already undergone by him.
5. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the
submissions made on behalf of the petitioner. However, he was not
in a position to dispute the fact that the present revision petition is
pending since 2008.
6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
material available on record.
7. A perusal of the impugned judgments makes is manifest that
the alleged incident happened in the year 1993 and the present
revision petition is pending adjudication since 2008.
7.1. Hon’ble the Supreme Court of India in the cases of Alister
Anthony Pareira Vs. State of Maharashtra : (2012)2 SCC
648 and Haripada Das Vs. State of W.B. : (1998)9 SCC 678,
pleased to observe as under :
Alister Anthony Pareira (supra) :
“84. … … … There is no straitjacket formula for sentencing an
accused on proof of crime. The courts have evolved certain
principles: twin objective of the sentencing policy is
deterrence and correction. What sentence would meet the
ends of justice depends on the facts and circumstances of
each case and the court must keep in mind the gravity of the
crime, motive for the crime, nature of the offence and all
other attendant circumstances.”
(Downloaded on 19/08/2025 at 09:31:44 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:36859] (4 of 4) [CRLR-422/2008]
Haripada Das (supra) :
“4. … … … considering the fact that the respondent had
already undergone detention for some period and the case is
pending for a pretty long time for which he had suffered both
financial hardship and mental agony and also considering the
fact that he had been released on bail as far back as on 17-1-
1986, we feel that the ends of justice will be met in the facts
of the case if the sentence is reduced to the period already
undergone…”
7.2. In the light of aforesaid discussion, precedent law and
keeping in view the limited prayer made on behalf of the
petitioner, the present revision petition is partly allowed.
7.3. Accordingly, while maintaining the conviction of the
petitioner for the offences under Sections 279, 337, 338 and
304-A of IPC, the sentences awarded to him are hereby reduced
to the period already undergone by him. The petitioner is on bail.
He need not surrender. His bail bonds stand discharged
accordingly.
7.4. All pending applications are disposed of.
8. Record of the case be sent back to the learned court below
forthwith.
(MUKESH RAJPUROHIT),J
Abhishek Kumar
S.No.18
(Downloaded on 19/08/2025 at 09:31:44 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
[ad_1]
Source link