Sambhu Singh vs State Of Rajasthan-State ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 5600 Raj

2023:RJ-JD:24847

      HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
                       JODHPUR
                   S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 450/1994

Sambhu Singh son of Padam Singh, by caste Rajput, resident of
Narwa, District Jodhpur
                                                                     ----Appellant
                                     Versus
State of Rajasthan
                                                                  ----Respondents


For Appellant(s)            :    None present
For Respondent(s)           :    Mr. Abhishek Purhohit, AGA



               HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FARJAND ALI

                                  Judgment

Judgment pronounced on : 04/08/2023
Judgment reserved on : 20/07/2023
By the Court :

1. The appellant has preferred the instant appeal under Section

374 of the CrPC being aggrieved of the judgment dated

18.08.1994 passed by the learned Special Judge, Scheduled

Caste/Schedule Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Cases Court,

Jodhpur in Sessions Case No.52/1994, whereby he has been

convicted and sentenced as under :-

Offence for which convicted           Sentence, Fine and Default Sentence
Section 3(1)(x) of the SC/ST 6   months'    simple    imprisonment
Act                          alongwith a fine of Rs.500/- and in
                             default of payment of fine, 2 months'
                             simple imprisonment
Section 336 IPC                       A fine of Rs.150/- and in default of
                                      payment of fine, 15 days' simple
                                      imprisonment

2. Briefly stated, facts relevant and essential for disposal of the

case are that on 28.03.1994 complainant Peeraram, resident of

2023:RJ-JD:24847 (2 of 7) [CRLA-450/1994]

Narwa, submitted a written report at the Police Station Soorsagar

to the effect that in the morning of that day, his wife came to

Police Line, where he was serving as a Sipahi. She told that on

the previous night at about 10-11 p.m. Shambhu Singh and

Mahendra Singh came to their house in intoxicated condition;

hurled caste related abuses and pelted stones on their house,

which were still present at the spot. It was also stated in the

complaint that previously also on 21.03.1994, the accused

committed similar act and on the next day, their relatives

apologized for their act. Now they have repeated the same act.

Roop Singh also witnessed the incident.

3. On the basis of the aforesaid report FIR No.60/1994 was

registered and after usual investigation, a charge-sheet came to

be submitted against the present appellant and one Mahendra

Singh for the offences under Sections 336, 504 IPC and Section

3(1)(x) of the SC/ST Act in the Court of the Additional Chief

Judicial Magistrate No.3, Jodhpur, from where the case was

committed and transferred to the trial court.

4. The learned trial court framed charges against the appellant

for the offences under Sections 3(1)(x) of the SC/ST Act and

Section 336 of the IPC and upon denial of guilt by the accused,

commenced the trial. During the course of trial, as many as 11

witnesses were examined and 6 documents were exhibited.

Thereafter, an explanation was sought from the accused-appellant

under Section 313 Cr.P.C., in which he denied the prosecution

2023:RJ-JD:24847 (3 of 7) [CRLA-450/1994]

allegations and claimed to be falsely implicated in the case due to

previous enmity. Two documents were exhibited in defence.

Then, after hearing the learned Public Prosecutor and the learned

Defence Counsel and upon meticulous appreciation of the

evidence, learned trial Judge convicted and sentenced the

appellant in the manner stated above vide judgment dated

18.08.1994, which is under assail before this court in the instant

appeal.

5. Learned counsel for the appellant is not present to argue the

case. A perusal of the file reveals that the appeal filed by co-

accused Mahendra Singh being S.B. Criminal Appeal No.514/1994

has already been partly allowed by a co-ordinate Bench vide

judgment dated 25.05.2022, whereby while maintaining the

conviction, the sentence awarded to the accused was reduced to

the period already undergone. In view of the above and looking to

the fact that the case pertains to the year 1994 and a significant

period has already elapsed, this court deemed it fit to decide the

appeal based on the material available on record and after hearing

the learned Public Prosecutor.

6. The grounds raised in the memo of appeal for assailing the

impugned judgment are that the alleged eye-witnesses of the

incident Smt. Pukhiya Devi (P.W.3), Smt. Bhanwari (P.W.4) and

Roop Singh (P.W.5) are interested witnesses and presence of the

alleged eye-witness Indra Singh (P.W.10) is not proved as his

name was not mentioned in the FIR; the appellant has been

2023:RJ-JD:24847 (4 of 7) [CRLA-450/1994]

falsely implicated in the case due to previous enmity; the

necessary ingredients to prove the offence under the SC/ST Act

are not available; since no one claimed to have received any

injury in the incident, the commission of offence under Section

336 of the IPC is not logical.

7. Per contra learned Public Prosecutor has vehemently argued

that the learned trial court has passed the impugned judgment

after apropos appreciation of the evidence available on record and

as the prosecution has fully established the guilt of the appellant

by producing cogent and clinching evidence, no interference in the

impugned judgment is called for in this appeal. However, he does

not refute the fact that the sentence of the co-accused has been

reduced by co-ordinate Bench.

8. I have considered the submissions advanced by learned

Public Prosecutor and have gone through the impugned judgment.

9. The learned trial court has reached to a finding that based on

the statements of the Smt. Pukhiya Devi (P.W.3) and Smt.

Bhanwari (P.W.4), which get further corroboration from the

testimonies of independent witnesses Roop Singh (P.W.5) and

Indra Singh (P.W.10), the prosecution has been able to prove

beyond reasonable doubt the occurrence of the incident, in which

the accused-appellant and one Mahendra Singh came to the house

of the complainant in intoxicated condition and hurled caste

related abuses in the night of 27.03.1994. Further from the site

2023:RJ-JD:24847 (5 of 7) [CRLA-450/1994]

plan (Ex.P/2) and the statements of the witnesses including the

Investigating Officers, the fact of pelting stones by them on the

house of the complainant is also established. Thus, the learned

trial court concluded that the offences under Section 3(1)(x) of

the SC/ST Act and Section 336 of the IPC are proved against the

appellant and accordingly, he was convicted for the said offences.

10. Upon thoughtful consideration, this court is of the opinion

that though there are minor discrepancies in the statements of the

witnesses, but a careful scrutiny of the same does not give rise to

any suspicion over their truthfulness specially when the same is

further corroborated by other material available on record. In the

considered opinion of this court, the prosecution has been able to

prove its case against the appellant beyond reasonable doubt by

producing cogent and unimpeachable evidence. The learned trial

court has prudently discussed the entire evidence in detail and

based upon thorough appreciation of the same has reached to the

conclusion of guilt of the appellant. I find no error, irregularity or

illegality in the impugned judgment of conviction. Accordingly, the

judgment of conviction is maintained.

11. As far as the question of quantum of sentence is concerned,

it is worthwhile to note that the incident is of the year 1994, in

which the appellant hurled abuses and pelted stones in intoxicated

condition. However, no one got injured in the incident. The

sentence of the co-accused Mahendra Singh has already been

reduced to the period already undergone by him. The right to

speedy and expeditious trial is one of the most valuable and

2023:RJ-JD:24847 (6 of 7) [CRLA-450/1994]

cherished rights guaranteed under the Constitution. The appellant

has already suffered the agony of protracted trial, spanning over a

period of more than 29 years and has been in the corridors of the

court for this prolonged period. He has remained incarcerated for

some time during trial. The reformative theory of punishment is

in vogue in our country and since the appellant is living peacefully

since last 29 years as no report contrary to that has been received

by this court, thus, it can be assumed that he has been reformed

and no fruitful purpose would be served by sending him to jail at

this stage as much misery has already been inflicted upon him.

12. In view of the discussion made hereinabove, the case of the

appellant deserves to be dealt with leniency and in parity with the

co-accused Mahendra Singh. The appellant also deserves the

benefit of the consistent view taken by this court in this regard.

Thus, guided by the judicial pronouncements made by the Hon'ble

Supreme Court in the cases of Haripada Das Vs. State of West

Bangal reported in (1998) 9 SCC 678 and Alister Anthony

Pareira vs. State of Maharashtra reported in 2012 2 SCC 648

and considering the facts and circumstances of the case, his

criminal antecedents, his status in the society and the fact that he

faced financial hardship and had to go through mental agony, this

court is of the view that ends of justice would be met, if sentence

imposed upon him for the offence under Section 3(1)(x) of the

SC/ST Act is reduced to the one already undergone by him.

2023:RJ-JD:24847 (7 of 7) [CRLA-450/1994]

13. Accordingly, the judgment of conviction dated 18.08.1994

passed by the learned Special Judge, Scheduled Caste/Schedule

Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Cases Court, Jodhpur in Sessions

Case No.52/1994 is affirmed but the quantum of sentence

awarded by the learned trial court for the offences under Section

3(1)(x) of the SC/ST Act is modified to the extent that the

sentence he has undergone till date would be sufficient and

justifiable to serve the interest of justice. The appellant is on bail.

He need not surrender. His bail bonds are discharged.

14. The appeal is allowed in part.

15. Pending applications, if any, are disposed of.

(FARJAND ALI),J 124-Pramod/-

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)