Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Sant Ram vs State on 1 August, 2025
Author: Farjand Ali
Bench: Farjand Ali
[2025:RJ-JD:33449]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 629/2008
Sant Ram S/o Raju Ram, R/o Ena Tehsil Suratgarh, District Sri
Ganganaar
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Ms. Anjali Kaushik
For Respondent(s) : Mr. S.S. Rathore, Dy.G.A.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FARJAND ALI
Order
11/07/2025
1. The present Criminal Revision Petition is directed against the
judgment dated 21.06.2008, passed by the learned Addl. District
& Sessions Judge, Camp Suratgarh, District Sri Ganganagar, in
Criminal Appeal No.72/2004, whereby the appellate court upheld
and affirmed the judgment of conviction and sentence dated
02.12.2004 rendered by the learned Judicial Magistrate Class I,
Suratgarh, in Criminal Regular Case No.702/2001.
2. By the aforesaid judgment, the learned trial Court convicted
the petitioner for offences punishable under Sections 447, 323 and
325 r.w. Section 34 of the IPC. The maximum sentence awarded
to the petitioner was one year's simple imprisonment under
Section 325/34 IPC, coupled with a fine of ₹500/-; in default of
payment, he wase directed to undergo an additional three months'
simple imprisonment.
[2025:RJ-JD:33449] (2 of 6) [CRLR-629/2008]
2.1. The prosecution case was initiated on the basis of a written
complaint submitted by the complainant, wherein it was alleged
that on the relevant date, between 08:00 to 09:00 AM, while she
was engaged in cleaning agricultural fields, Indrawat @ Raju and
his grandsons assaulted her. It was specifically alleged that
Santram struck her on the head with a stick. Upon her husband
Dhankar's arrival at the scene, he too was physically assaulted
and forcefully taken away by the accused. The complainant stated
that if Mahavir, Ravi, and Vinod had not intervened, Indraj @
Kaura would have killed them. It was further alleged that during
the assault, her gold ornaments were forcibly taken, and she
eventually lost consciousness due to the injuries sustained.
2.2. Upon conclusion of the investigation, a charge sheet was filed
before the learned Magistrate at Gangar, and charges were
accordingly framed against accused Santram, Rajuram, and
Bimladevi for offences punishable under Sections 447, 323, and
325 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The accused
persons pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
2.3. During the pendency of the trial, co-accused Rajuram passed
away, and accordingly, proceedings against him were abated.
2.4. In support of the prosecution case, statements of as many as
six witnesses were recorded, including PW-1 Shajanyavi, PW-2
Omprakash, PW-3 Mahavir, PW-4 Vinod, PW-5 Punnilal, and PW-6
Dr. Kailash Saharan. Investigating Officer H.O. Indraj also deposed
on behalf of the prosecution. Documentary evidence marked as
Exhibit P to Exhibit P-II was exhibited during trial.
[2025:RJ-JD:33449] (3 of 6) [CRLR-629/2008]
2.5. Upon conclusion of prosecution evidence, the accused were
examined under Section 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code. They
denied the allegations and claimed false implication. In their
defence, they relied upon a written complaint filed by Omprakash
during the course of investigation.
2.5. After trial, after hearing both sides, the learned trial Court
convicted and sentenced the petitioner under the aforementioned
provisions vide judgment dated 02.12.2004. The petitioner,
aggrieved thereby, preferred an appeal No.72/2004 which was
dismissed vide judgment dated 21.06.2008 by the learned
Additional Sessions Judge No.2, Sri Ganganagar, thereby affirming
the findings of conviction and sentence.
2.6. The petitioner, dissatisfied with the concurrent findings of
guilt and sentence, has now approached this Court by invoking its
revisional jurisdiction under Sections 397 and 401 CrPC.
3. At the outset, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
he does not press the revision petition insofar as it pertains to the
conviction recorded against the petitioner. The challenge is
confined solely to the quantum of sentence imposed. It is
submitted that the incident in question is over two decades old,
dating back to the year 2001, and that the petitioner has already
undergone approximately 11 days of incarceration during trial and
post-conviction. Emphasis is laid upon the advanced age of the
petitioner, his modest socio-economic background, and the
prolonged pendency of litigation, causing mental anguish and
societal hardship. It is, therefore, urged that a lenient view be
[2025:RJ-JD:33449] (4 of 6) [CRLR-629/2008]
taken and the sentence of imprisonment be suitably modified to
the period already undergone.
4. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the
learned Public Prosecutor representing the State. I have also
perused the record of the courts below and the impugned
judgments with due care.
5. Insofar as the conviction of the petitioner is concerned, in view
of the fair and candid concession made by the learned counsel and
upon appraisal of the evidence on record, this Court finds no legal
infirmity, perversity, or miscarriage of justice in the concurrent
findings returned by the courts below. The appreciation of
evidence is found to be reasonable and legally sustainable.
Consequently, the conviction of the petitioner under Sections 447,
323 and 325/34 IPC stands affirmed.
6. As regards the quantum of sentence, the mitigating factors
placed on record deserve due consideration. The occurrence is of
the year 2001, and the petitioner has already undergone part of
the custodial sentence. The pendency of proceedings for 24-25
years, his present age, impecuniosity, and lack of any reported
criminal antecedents weigh in favour of extending the benefit of
leniency. In this context, the principles laid down by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in Haripada Das v. State of West Bengal,
(1998) 9 SCC 678 and Alister Anthony Pareira v. State of
Maharashtra, (2012) 2 SCC 648, lend support to the
proposition that in appropriate cases, the sentence may be
[2025:RJ-JD:33449] (5 of 6) [CRLR-629/2008]
reduced to the period already undergone in order to serve the
ends of justice.
7. Accordingly, while maintaining the conviction of the petitioner
under the said provisions, the sentence of imprisonment awarded
to them is modified and reduced to the period already undergone.
However, the fine imposed by the learned trial Court shall remain
undisturbed. In default of payment of the said fine, the petitioner
shall be liable to undergo the default sentence as originally
awarded.
8. Having regard to the nature of injuries sustained by the victim
Para Devi, particularly the grievous injury on her hand, it would be
just and appropriate to direct the petitioner to pay compensation.
Accordingly, petitioner shall pay a sum of ₹20,000/- (Rupees
Twenty Thousand only) to the injured Para Devi. The said amount
shall be deposited before the trial Court within a period of 90 days
from the date of this order. Upon such deposit, the trial Court shall
ensure disbursement of the amount to the injured without delay.
9. In view of the above, the revision petition stands partly
allowed to the extent indicated hereinabove.
10. Let a copy of this judgment be transmitted to the concerned
trial Court forthwith for necessary compliance.
11. All pending applications, if any, stand disposed of
accordingly.
(FARJAND ALI),J
7-Mamta/-
[2025:RJ-JD:33449] (6 of 6) [CRLR-629/2008]
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
