Partly allowed

Ratan Lal Meena v. State

Rajasthan HC8 Oct 2025CRLR/459/2007

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court reduced the sentence of imprisonment to the period already undergone by the petitioner, considering the long pendency of the trial spanning over 29 years and the fact that the petitioner had already suffered incarceration. The conviction for offences under Sections 279, 337 and 304-A IPC was maintained.

What did the court decide?

Sentence reduced to the period already undergone; bail bonds discharged.

Ratan Lal Meena Vs State — Motor Accident Claims | Rajasthan HC (2025)

¶1

[2025:RJ-JP:40938]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶3

S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 459/2007

¶4

Ratan Lal Meena S/o Siya Ram Meena, R/O Kali Pahadi,Tehsil and District Dausa (Raj.)

¶5

----Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

State of Rajasthan through P.P

¶8

----Respondent

¶9

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Harshit Bhatt on behalf of Mr. Pankaj Gupta For Respondent(s) : Mr. Jitendra Singh Rathore, A.G.A

¶10

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BHUWAN GOYAL

¶11

Order

¶12

08/10/2025

¶13

The present revision petition under Section 397 read with Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed by the accused-petitioner – Ratan Lal Meena against the Judgment and Order dated 30.04.2007 passed by Sessions Judge, Dausa (Raj.) (hereinafter referred to as "appellate court") in Criminal Appeal No. 49/2005 (Ratan Lal Meena vs. State of Rajasthan) vide which criminal appeal filed by the accused-petitioner has been partly dismissed and the judgment and order dated 23.11.2005 passed by the trial court qua his conviction and sentence for the offence under Sections 279, 337 and 304-A of I.P.C., as mentioned herein below is maintained.

¶14

offence	sentence	fine	sentence in
			default on

¶15

[2025:RJ-JP:40938]	(2 o	f 7)	[CRLR-459/2007] payment of fine
u/s 279 IPC	2 Months S.I	Rs. 200/-	To further undergo 10 days S.I
u/s 337 IPC	2 Months S.I	Rs. 200/-	To further undergo 10 days S.I
u/s 304-A IPC	6 Months S.I	Rs. 300/-	To further undergo 15 days S.I

¶16

(All sentences were ordered to run concurrently)

¶17

Facts of the case in short are that on 27.04.1996, one Jagdish (P.W. 2) submitted a parcha bayan (Ex.P/3) to the effect that his younger brother's wedding procession was going on in a tractor to Haripura. The said tractor belonged to Gopal Haryana Brahman, which was being driven by the petitioner-Ratan Lal Meena. At about 6:30 PM, when the said tractor reached at Pyariwas, another tractor in which passengers were sitting was going ahead of it. The petitioner asked for side but the driver of the another tractor did not do so. When the petitioner was trying to overtake another tractor, the driver of another tractor took its tractor in wrong side, as a result of which, corner of the trolley attached with the petitioner's tractor was crushed and the petitioner's tractor overturned due to which the baraties sitting inside the tractor sustained injuries. On the basis of said Parcha Bayan , the Police registered FIR No. 79/96 and investigation was commenced. During investigation injured Kaluram died. After completing the investigation, the police submitted the challan

(3 of 7)

[2025:RJ-JP:40938]

[CRLR-459/2007]

against accused-petitioner for the offence under Sections 279, 337, 338 and 304-A IPC and Section 146/196, 3/181 and 177 of M.V. Act before court concerned. The court read over the charges to the petitioner for the offence under Sections 279, 337, 338 and 304-A IPC, who denied the same and claimed for trial. After conclusion of trial, the trial court passed judgment and order dated 23.11.2005 convicting and sentencing him for the offence under Sections 279, 337, 338 and 304-A IPC. Thereafter, the petitioner filed an appeal before the appellate court and the appellate court vide its judgment dated 30.04.2007 partly dismissed the appeal and while setting aside the conviction and sentence for the offence under Section 338 IPC maintained rest part of the judgment dated 23.11.2005 passed by the trial court as indicated hereinabove. Hence, this criminal revision petition has been preferred by the accused-petitioner.

¶22

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

¶23

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 for the offence under Sections 279, 337 and 304-A of IPC and prefers to make submissions on the point of sentence only.

¶24

Learned counsel for the accused-petitioner has submitted that incident in the present case took place way back in the year 1996 i.e. around 29 years ago; accused-petitioner was 25 years of age at the time of incident and now he is around 54 years old and facing agony of trial for the past about 29 years; accused-

[2025:RJ-JP:40938]

[CRLR-459/2007]

(4 of 7)

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 more than one 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.

¶29

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. 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.

[2025:RJ-JP:40938]

[CRLR-459/2007]

(5 of 7)

Criminal Revision Petition No. 972 of 2006) decided on

¶34

08.07.2024.

¶35

Per contra, learned Government Advocate 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 and modified by the appellate court cannot be said to be disproportionate, therefore, no interference is warranted in this case.

¶36

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. 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 the courts below qua conviction of the accused-petitioner for the offence under Sections 279, 337 and 304-A IPC are maintained. 10. As far as quantum of sentence is concerned, after perusing judgments and orders impugned, considering the submissions of learned counsel for the parties; precedent law on the issue; accused-petitioner, who was only 25 years of age at the time of incident, has already suffered the agony of protracted trial, spanning over a period of more than 29 years and he remained incarcerated for some time after passing of the judgment, and no

[2025:RJ-JP:40938]

[CRLR-459/2007]

(6 of 7)

evidence regarding previous conviction of the accused-petitioner is produced on record, this Court is of the opinion that if at this stage, he is sent behind bars, it will result into reviving old enmity and the same will not be conducive for peace and harmony in the village and that family of the petitioner will also suffer, therefore, no fruitful purpose would be served by sending him to jail now.

¶41

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:-

¶42

Alister Anthony Pareira (Supra)

¶43

“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.”

¶44

Haripada Das (Supra)

¶45

“…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…”

¶46

Consequently, the judgments dated 30.04.2007 and 23.11.2005 passed by both the courts below qua conviction of the accused-petitioner for the offence under Sections 279, 337 and 304-A IPC are affirmed but the quantum of sentence awarded to the accused-petitioner by the trial court and modified by the appellate court is reduced to the period already undergone by

¶47

(7 of 7) [CRLR-459/2007]

¶48

[2025:RJ-JP:40938]

¶49

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.

¶50

The revision petition stands disposed of accordingly.

¶51

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

¶52

(BHUWAN GOYAL),J

¶53

Ritu/12

Ratan Lal Meena v. State

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ratan Lal Meena 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

Vishwajeet Singh S/O Shri Brijesh Kumar Singh Vs Central Bureau of Investigation

Swatantra Gaurav S/O Shri Hariram Vs Central Bureau of Investigation

Manish Mishra Son of Mr. Amarnath Mishra Vs Central Bureau of Investigation

Prabhu Singh Vs State

Laxmi Narayan Meena Vs State

Yunus Khan Vs State