Shyopal Vs State

The present revision petition under Section 397 read with Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed by the accused-petitioner – Shyopal against the Judgment and Order dated 17.04.2007 passed by Sessions Judge, Tonk (hereinafter referred to as "appellate court") in Criminal Appeal No. 42/2006 (Shyopal vs. State of Rajasthan) vide which criminal appeal filed by the accused-petitioner has been dismissed and the Judgment and Order dated 02.09.2006 passed by Judicial Magistrate First Class, Deoli, District Tonk (hereinafter referred to as "trial court") in Criminal Case no. 637/2004(484/86) (State of Rajasthan vs. Shyopal) convicting and sentencing the petitioner for the offence under Sections 279, 337 & 304-A of I.P.C. as indicated below but acquitting him for the offence under section 427 of I.P.C. has been affirmed.

¶13

offence	sentence	fine	sentence in
			default on
			payment of fine

¶14

(2 of 6)

¶15

[2026:RJ-JP:157]

¶16

[CRLR-468/2007]

¶17

u/s 279 IPC	To undergo 3 months S.I	---	---
u/s 337 IPC	To undergo 3 months S.I	---	---
u/s 304-A IPC	To undergo 2 years S.I	---	---

¶18

(All sentences were ordered to run concurrently)

¶19

Facts of the case in short are that on 15.10.1986, complainant Mhd. Hussain (P.W. 1) submitted a written report in Police Station Ghad, to the effect that when he was going from Jahajpur to Jaipur on truck bearing registration no. R.S.E 5275 at around 1.30 PM, he parked the truck near Nayagaon to cool down its tyres. He and Siddique Mohammad were talking at the back side of the truck. Suddenly an empty vehicle bearing registration no. RJV 5392 came from opposite direction in its wrong side rashly and hit the parked vehicle, due to which Siddique Mohammad and Cleaner Noor Mhd. sustained multiple injuries and they were taken to the Tonk Hospital. On the basis of said report, the Police registered FIR No. 53/86 for the offence under Sections 279, 337 & 427 IPC and investigation was commenced. After completing the investigation, the police submitted the challan against accusedpetitioner for the offence under Sections 279, 337, 304-A & 427 of IPC before the concerned court. Substance of allegations were read over to the accused-petitioner, who denied the same and claimed for trial. The prosecution produced its witnesses and exhibited some documents. The statement of the petitioner was recorded under section 313 CrPC. After conclusion of trial, the trial court passed judgment and order dated 02.09.2006 convicting

[2026:RJ-JP:157]

[CRLR-468/2007]

(3 of 6)

and sentencing the accused-petitioner for the offence under Sections 279, 337 & 304-A IPC and acquitting him for the offence under Section 427 of IPC as indicated above. Thereafter, the petitioner filed an appeal and the appellate court vide its judgment dated 17.04.2007 dismissed the appeal and affirmed the judgment dated 02.09.2006 passed by the trial court. Hence, this criminal revision petition has been preferred by the accusedpetitioner.

¶24

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

¶25

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 and prefers to make submissions on the point of sentence only.

¶26

Learned counsel for the accused-petitioner has submitted that incident in the present case took place way back in the year 1986 i.e. around 39 years ago; accused-petitioner was 22 years of age at the time of incident and now he is around 61 years old and facing agony of trial for the past about 39 years; accusedpetitioner 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 about three month and eighteen days 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.

[2026:RJ-JP:157]

[CRLR-468/2007]

(4 of 6)

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. Criminal Revision Petition No. 972 of 2006) decided on 08.07.2024.

¶31

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 affirmed by the appellate court cannot be said to be

[2026:RJ-JP:157]

[CRLR-468/2007]

(5 of 6)

disproportionate, therefore, no interference in sentence 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.

¶37

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 are maintained.

¶38

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 22 years of age at the time of incident, has already suffered the agony of protracted trial, spanning over a period of more than 39 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, this Court is of the opinion that if at this stage, he is sent behind bars, it will result into reviving old enmity and that family of the petitioner will also suffer, therefore, no fruitful purpose would be served by sending him to jail now.

¶39

This Court is conscious of the judgments rendered in Alister Anthony Pareira Vs. State of Maharashtra : (2012) 2 SCC

(6 of 6)

[2026:RJ-JP:157]

[CRLR-468/2007]

648 and Haripada Das Vs. State of W.B. : (1998) 9 SCC 678 ,

¶44

wherein, the Hon'ble Apex Court observed as under:-

¶45

Alister Anthony Pareira (Supra)

¶46

“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.”

¶47

Haripada Das (Supra)

¶48

“…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…”

¶49

Consequently, the judgments dated 17.04.2007 and 02.09.2006 passed by both the courts below qua conviction of the accused-petitioner for the offence under Sections 279, 337 & 304A of I.P.C. are affirmed but the quantum of sentence awarded to the accused-petitioner by the trial court and affirmed by the appellate court 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 be cancelled.

¶50

The revision petition stands disposed of accordingly.

¶51

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

¶52

court forthwith.

¶53

(BHUWAN GOYAL),J

¶54

Anu/79

Shyopal v. State

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shyopal v. State

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/S Alfisha Building Material Supplier and Construction Vs Firm Chavandiya Motors

Gopal S/O Gheesu Lal Vs State of Rajasthan

Kailash Chand Vs State

Jaishiv Son of Shri Ramsingh Vs State of Rajasthan

Shyam Sunder Vs State

Heeralal Alias Heeraram Son of Shri Khetaram Vs State of Rajasthan