Disposed

Bhanwar Lal v. State

Rajasthan HC22 Aug 2025CRLR/432/2007

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Revision against conviction under Sections 279 and 304-A IPC in a 1995 rash driving death case; conviction not pressed and affirmed. Considering the petitioner's age, prolonged trial and no previous conviction, the Court reduced imprisonment to the period already undergone.

What did the court decide?

Conviction affirmed; sentences reduced to period already undergone; bail bonds discharged.

Bhanwar Lal Vs State — Bail and Remand | Rajasthan HC (2025)

¶1

[2025:RJ-JP:33262]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶3

S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 432/2007

¶4

Bhanwar Lal S/o Jagdish Prashad, R/o Gram Sathoor, P.S. Hindoli, District Bundi

¶5

(At present lodged in District Jail, Bundi)

----Petitioner

Versus

State

----Respondent

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Santosh Kumar Jain For Respondent(s) : Mr. Jitender Singh Rathore, AGA

¶11

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BHUWAN GOYAL

¶12

Order

¶13

22/08/2025

¶14

The present revision petition under Section 397 read with Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, has been filed by the accused-petitioner- Bhanwar Lal against Judgment and Order dated 23.04.2007 passed by Additional Sessions Judge no. 2, Bundi, Rajasthan (hereinafter referred to as "appellate court") in Criminal Appeal No. 21/2004 (Bhanwar Lal vs. State of Rajasthan) vide which criminal appeal filed by the accused-petitioner against the Judgment and Order of Sentence dated 31.05.2004 passed by Judicial Magistrate First Class, Hindoli, Bundi (hereinafter referred to as "trial court") in Criminal Regular Case no. 2693/03 (37/99) (State of Rajasthan vs. Bhanwar Lal) convicting and sentencing him for the offences under sections 279 & 304-A I.P.C., was dismissed. The sentence awarded to the petitioner is as under:-

(2 of 6)

[2025:RJ-JP:33262]

[CRLR-432/2007]

offence	sentence	fine	sentence in
			default
u/s 279 IPC	3 Months S.I	---	---
u/s 304-A IPC	1year S.I	Rs. 1000/-	2 Months S.I
(All se	ntences were ord	ered to run conc	urrently)

¶19

Facts of the case in short are that on the basis of the written report submitted by complainant – Pokharmal (P.W. 1) with respect to an incident occurred on 05.06.1995, wherein the allegation was that while his neighbor Devi Lal was coming from the shop of Panna Lal, driver of the jeep plying at high speed rashly and negligently came from Hindoli side and dashed Devi Lal who died on the spot was leveled, F.I.R. No. 106/95 was registered at Police Station Hindoli, District Bundi for the offence under Section 304-A of I.P.C. During investigation, police added Section 279 of I.P.C. After conclusion of investigation, police submitted charge-sheet against accused-petitioner for the offences under sections 279 & 304-A 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 31.05.2004 convicting and sentencing him for the offences under Sections 279 & 304-A of I.P.C., as stated above. Aggrieved by judgment of conviction and sentence dated 31.05.2004, accused-petitioner preferred an appeal before the learned appellate court, which is dismissed by appellate court. Hence, this criminal revision petition has been preferred by the accused-petitioner.

¶20

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

(3 of 6)

[2025:RJ-JP:33262]

[CRLR-432/2007]

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.

¶25

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 37 years of age at the time of incident and now he is around 67 years old and facing agony of trial since last around 30 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 more than a month 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.

¶26

Learned counsel for the accused-petitioner has relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Chander Shekhar vs. State of Rajasthan (Criminal Appeal No. 4161/2024) decided on 04.10.2024 and the judgments rendered by a coordinate Bench of this Court in the cases of Shyamveer Singh vs. State of Rajasthan (S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 724/2003) decided on 15.05.2024, Smt. Sudesh Kumari vs. State of Rajasthan (S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 1047/2005) decided on 09.10.2024, Mahesh Bhargava vs. State of Rajasthan (S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No.

¶27

(4 of 6) [CRLR-432/2007]

¶28

[2025:RJ-JP:33262]

¶29

737/2005) decided on 06.11.2024, Pappu vs. State of Rajasthan (S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 538/2005) decided on 21.08.2024, Annu @ Anwar vs. State of Rajasthan (S.B. Criminal Writ Petition No. 333/2018) decided on 04.11.2024, Banna Ram vs. State of Rajasthan (S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 391 of 2006) decided on 08.07.2024, Heera Lal vs. State of Rajasthan (S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 733/2003) decided on 14.02.2024 & Ram Karan vs. State of Rajasthan (S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 972 of 2006) decided on 08.07.2024.

¶30

Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor while opposing the revision petition, submits that looking to the overall facts and circumstances of the case and the well reasoned speaking orders passed by the courts below, sentence awarded by the trial court cannot be said to be disproportionate, therefore, no interference in sentence is warranted in this case.

¶31

I have considered the arguments advanced at the Bar and have gone through judgments passed by both the courts below and record of the case as also judgments cited in this case. 9. Since the revision petition against conviction of the accusedpetitioner is not pressed on merits and after perusing the record, nothing is noticed which requires interference in the finding of guilt reached by the courts below, this Court does not wish to interfere in the judgments passed by courts below qua conviction of the accused-petitioner. Accordingly, the judgments passed by

[2025:RJ-JP:33262]

[CRLR-432/2007]

(5 of 6)

the courts below qua conviction of the accused-petitioner are maintained.

¶36

As far as quantum of sentence is concerned, a perusal of record transpires that accused-petitioner, who was only 37 years at the time of incident, has already suffered the agony of protracted trial, spanning over a period of around 30 years and he remained incarcerated for some time after passing of the judgment, and no evidence regarding previous conviction of the accused-petitioner is produced on record.

¶37

This Court is conscious of the judgments rendered in Alister Anthony Pareira Vs. State of Maharashtra : (2012) 2 SCC 648 and Haripada Das Vs. State of W.B. : (1998) 9 SCC 678 , wherein, the Hon'ble Apex Court observed as under:-

¶38

Alister Anthony Pareira (Supra)

¶39

“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.”

¶40

Haripada Das (Supra)

¶41

“…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…”

¶42

After perusing judgments and orders impugned, considering the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and the

(6 of 6)

[2025:RJ-JP:33262]

[CRLR-432/2007]

precedent law on the issue, this Court is of the opinion that if at this stage, accused-petitioner is sent behind bars, family of the petitioner will also suffer, therefore, no fruitful purpose would be served by sending him to jail now.

¶47

Consequently, the judgments dated 23.04.2007 and 31.05.2004 passed by both the courts below qua conviction of the accused-petitioner for the offences under Sections 279 & 304-A of I.P.C. are affirmed but the quantum of sentence for the offences under Sections 279 & 304-A of I.P.C., awarded to the accusedpetitioner by the trial court and affirmed by the appellate court is modified and is reduced to the period already undergone by him, which would be sufficient and justifiable to serve interest of justice. The accused-petitioner is on bail. He need not to surrender. His bail bonds are discharged.

¶48

The revision petition stands disposed of with aforesaid modification in the order of sentence.

¶49

A copy of this order along with records be sent to the trial court forthwith.

¶50

(BHUWAN GOYAL),J

¶51

INDER /13

Bhanwar Lal v. State

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bhanwar Lal v. State

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Amarjeet Singh Vs State

Ghanshyam Saini Vs State and Others

Manjur Khan Vs State

Satya Narain and Ors. Vs State

Samay Singh Vs State

Bhagsingh Vs State