Rajasthan High Court – Jaipur
Fariyad Ali vs State on 21 July, 2026
[2026:RJ-JP:28053]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 971/2008
URN: CRLR / 1889U / 2008
Fariyad Ali S/O Alladdin, Resident of Chauth Ka Barwada, District
Sawaimadhopur
----Petitioner
Versus
The State of Rajasthan
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Tarun Jain
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Shriram Dhakad, Dy.GA with
Ms. Neha Goyal
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BHUWAN GOYAL
Judgment
21/07/2026
1. The present revision petition under Section 397 read with
Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed by
the accused-petitioner – Fariyad Ali against the Judgment and
Order dated 25.08.2008 passed by Additional Session Judge (Fast
Track) Sawaimadhopur (hereinafter referred to as “appellate
court”) in Criminal Appeal No. 71/2008 ( Fariyad Ali vs. State of
Rajasthan) vide which criminal appeal filed by the accused-
petitioner has been dismissed and the Judgment and Order dated
26.09.2006 passed by Judicial Magistrate First Class,
Sawaimadhopur (hereinafter referred to as “trial court”) in
Criminal Case no. 24/2003 (State of Rajasthan vs. Fariyad Ali)
convicting and sentencing the petitioner for the offence under
Sections 279, 337, 338 & 304-A of I.P.C. as indicated below has
been affirmed.
(Uploaded on 24/07/2026 at 04:29:44 PM)
(Downloaded on 25/07/2026 at 03:49:37 AM)
[2026:RJ-JP:28053] (2 of 7) [CRLR-971/2008]
offence sentence fine sentence in
default on
payment of fine
u/s 279 IPC To undergo 1 Rs. 100/- To further
month S.I undergo 1 day
S.I
u/s 337 IPC To undergo 2 Rs. 200/- To further
months S.I. undergo 2 days
S.I
u/s 338 IPC To undergo 6 Rs. 500/- To further
months S.I. undergo 5 days
S.I
u/s 304-A IPC To undergo 1 year Rs. 700/- To further
S.I. undergo 7 days
S.I
(All sentences were ordered to run concurrently)
2.Facts of the case in short are that on 15.09.2002, the
complainant- Majrub Bhanwar submitted a Parcha Bayan (Ex. P/1)
in General Hospital, Sawaimadhopur to the effect that on
14.09.2002 at around 4 PM, he alongwith Kanhaiya Lal Sain and
Chandershekhar had gone on Hero Puch Luna bearing registration
No. RJ25-1 M 6323 at the house of Satyanarayan Sain village
Bhadola in a programme. At around 8:30 PM, while they were
returning from Chauth Ka Barwada, the complainant was driving
the said Hero Puch, Chandershekar was sitting in between and
Kanhaiya Lal was sitting on the rear seat of the Hero Puch. At
about 8:45 PM, while they reached near Bhadoli on Bhadola Road,
a jeep came from the side of Barwada at an excessive speed
rashly and negligently and hit their Hero Puch. As a result, all of
(Uploaded on 24/07/2026 at 04:29:44 PM)
(Downloaded on 25/07/2026 at 03:49:37 AM)
[2026:RJ-JP:28053] (3 of 7) [CRLR-971/2008]
them fell down and sustained multiple injuries. On the basis of
said parcha bayan, police registered FIR No.126/2002 at Police
Station Chauth ka Barwada, District Sawaimadhopur for the
offence under sections 279, 337 & 304A IPC. After completing the
investigation, the police submitted the challan against accused-
petitioner for the offence under Sections 279, 337, 338 & 304 A of
IPC before the concerned court. The trial court took cognizance of
the offence and substance of allegations were read over to the
accused-petitioner, who denied the same and claimed for trial.
After conclusion of trial, the trial court passed judgment and order
dated 26.09.2006 convicting and sentencing the accused-
petitioner for the offence under Sections 279, 337, 338 & 304-A
IPC as indicated above. Thereafter, the petitioner filed an appeal
and the appellate court vide its judgment dated 25.08.2008
dismissed the appeal and affirmed the judgment dated
26.09.2006 passed by the trial court. Hence, this criminal revision
petition has been preferred by the accused-petitioner.
3. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
4. 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.
5. Learned counsel for the accused-petitioner has submitted
that incident in the present case took place way back in the year
2002 i.e. around 24 years ago; accused-petitioner was 30 years
of age at the time of incident and now he is around 54 years old
(Uploaded on 24/07/2026 at 04:29:44 PM)
(Downloaded on 25/07/2026 at 03:49:37 AM)
[2026:RJ-JP:28053] (4 of 7) [CRLR-971/2008]
and facing agony of trial for the past about 24 years; accused-
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 about 13 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.
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.
(Uploaded on 24/07/2026 at 04:29:44 PM)
(Downloaded on 25/07/2026 at 03:49:37 AM)
[2026:RJ-JP:28053] (5 of 7) [CRLR-971/2008]
Criminal Revision Petition No. 972 of 2006) decided on
08.07.2024.
7. Per contra, learned Deputy 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 disproportionate, therefore, no interference in sentence is
warranted in this case.
8. 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 accused-
petitioner 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.
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 30 years of age at the time of
incident, has already suffered the agony of protracted trial,
spanning over a period of more than 24 years and he remained
incarcerated for some time after passing of the judgment, and no
(Uploaded on 24/07/2026 at 04:29:44 PM)
(Downloaded on 25/07/2026 at 03:49:37 AM)
[2026:RJ-JP:28053] (6 of 7) [CRLR-971/2008]
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, family of the petitioner will also
suffer, therefore, no fruitful purpose would be served by sending
him to jail now.
11. 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:-
Alister Anthony Pareira (Supra)
“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.”
Haripada Das (Supra)
“…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…”
12. Consequently, the judgments dated 25.08.2008 and
26.09.2006 passed by both the courts below qua conviction of the
accused-petitioner for the offence under Sections 279, 337, 338 &
304-A 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
(Uploaded on 24/07/2026 at 04:29:44 PM)
(Downloaded on 25/07/2026 at 03:49:37 AM)
[2026:RJ-JP:28053] (7 of 7) [CRLR-971/2008]justice. The accused-petitioner is on bail. He need not to
surrender. His bail bonds be cancelled.
13. The revision petition stands disposed of accordingly.
14. A copy of this order along with records be sent to the trial
court forthwith.
(BHUWAN GOYAL),J
Gourav/19
(Uploaded on 24/07/2026 at 04:29:44 PM)
(Downloaded on 25/07/2026 at 03:49:37 AM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
