[Cites 8, Cited by 0]
Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Shamboo Singh vs State on 8 December, 2025
Author: Farjand Ali
Bench: Farjand Ali
[2025:RJ-JD:53126]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 137/1997
Shamboo Singh S/o Khuman Singh Rajput, R/o Jorawar Singh Ka
Kheda, Post Rajiyawas, Via Kankroli, District Rajsamand
----Appellant
Versus
State of Rajasthan
----Respondent
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Manish Sisodia, Senior Advocate,
assisted by Mr Harshvardhan Singh
Rathore
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Rajesh Bhati, AGA
Mr. Ravindra Singh, AGA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FARJAND ALI
Judgment
Judgment reserved on : 05/12/2025
Judgment pronounced on : 08/12/2025
1. By way of filing the instant Criminal Appeal under Section
374 of the CrPC, challenge has been made to the judgment dated
06.03.1997 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Rajsamand in
Sessions Case No.125/1993, whereby the learned trial court
convicted and sentenced the appellant as under :-
Offence for which convicted Sentence awarded
Section 326 IPC 4 years' R.I. alongwith a fine of
Rs.2000/- and default of payment of
fine, further to undergo 6 months' R.I.
Section 323 IPC 3 months' S.I
2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the appellant
alongwith co-accused Rama S/o Dewa Gujar were tried for
offences under Sections 307, 326, 323 IPC on basis of FIR
117/1993 lodged by complainant Gorawardhan singh at Police
(Uploaded on 10/12/2025 at 03:39:53 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:53126] (2 of 6) [CRLA-137/1997]
Station Nathdwara being EX.P/2. It was alleged in the FIR that the
accused gave beating to Doongarsingh, the father of the
complainant, on account of enemity between co-accused Rama
and one Tejaram. The injury is said to have resulted in cutting off
of fingers of Doongarsingh. A cross case was
also registered as the accused received 11 Injuries including
incised grevious injury on hand and simple injuries on head and
shoulders.
3. The appellant was tried as aforesaid alongwith Rama and
after trial co-accused Rama was acquitted and the appellant was
convicted and sentenced as aforesaid. Being aggrieved of the
same, the appellant has preferred the instant appeal.
4. After arguing on merits to some extent, learned counsel for
the appellant does not wish to press the present appeal in respect
of the judgment of conviction passed by the learned trial court and
preferred to make submissions on the point of sentence only. He
submits that the dispute erupted on a very trivial issue and in the
heat of the moment, the appellant inflicted injury to the victim.
The accused party also received injuries in the incident. The
incident is of the year 1993. The petitioner is 68 years old person.
There is no criminal antecedent of the present appellant. It was
the first criminal case registered against him. No adverse remark
has been passed over his conduct in the impugned judgment. He
faced trial for 4 years and the present appeal is pending for last
28 years. The appellant has languished for some time in jail.
(Uploaded on 10/12/2025 at 03:39:53 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:53126] (3 of 6) [CRLA-137/1997]
Hence, it is prayed that taking into account the aforesaid facts, a
lenient view may be taken on the point of sentence awarded to
the appellant.
5. Learned public prosecutor though opposed the submissions
made on behalf of the appellant but does not refute the fact that it
was the first criminal case registered against him and he had no
criminal antecedents as well as the fact that he has remained
behind the bars for some time.
6. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and the learned
Public prosecutor and perused the record and other material
available on the record.
7. Since the appeal against conviction is not pressed and after
perusing the record, nothing is noticed which requires interference
in the finding of guilt reached by learned trial court, this court
does not wish to interfere in the judgment of conviction.
Accordingly, the judgment of conviction is maintained.
8. As far as the question of quantum of sentence is concerned,
this Court finds substance in the submissions advanced on behalf
of the appellant. The incident in question occurred in the year
1993, more than 32 years ago. The material on record shows that
the dispute flared up suddenly on a trivial issue and there was no
premeditation on the part of the appellant. It is also not in dispute
that the accused side too sustained multiple injuries in the course
(Uploaded on 10/12/2025 at 03:39:53 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:53126] (4 of 6) [CRLA-137/1997]
of the same occurrence, thus, indicating that the incident was a
free fight arising out of a sudden quarrel rather than a deliberate
assault.
9. The appellant is now a 68-year-old individual with no prior
criminal antecedents. The present case was the first and only
criminal prosecution against him. There is no adverse finding
regarding his conduct either during trial or thereafter. He has
undergone incarceration for some period following conviction and
has faced the agony of criminal proceedings for more than three
decades. Keeping in view the nature of the incident, the age of the
appellant, his clean antecedents, the long passage of time, and
the fact that no useful purpose would now be served by requiring
him to undergo the remaining part of the substantive sentence,
this Court is of the considered opinion that the ends of justice
would be adequately met by extending to him the benefit of
admonition under Section 3 of the Probation of Offenders Act,
1958.
10. Section 3 of the Act reads as under:-
"3. Power of court to release certain offenders after
admonition.--When any person is found guilty of
having committed an offence punishable under
Sections 379, 380, 381, 404 or 420 of the Indian Penal
Code, or any offence punishable with imprisonment for
not more than two years, or with fine, or with both,
and no previous conviction is proved against him, the
court before which he is convicted may, instead of
(Uploaded on 10/12/2025 at 03:39:53 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:53126] (5 of 6) [CRLA-137/1997]
sentencing him to any punishment, release him after
due admonition."
11. Though Section 326 IPC ordinarily carries a higher
punishment, the beneficent provision of the Probation of Offenders
Act can be invoked in appropriate cases, as consistently
recognised by judicial precedents, particularly when the
circumstances reveal absence of criminal intent, long passage of
time, rehabilitation of the offender, and no societal interest in
further imprisonment. Considering the facts of this case, the
appellant squarely deserves such benefit.
12. This Court is consciously refraining from directing the
appellant to furnish a bond under Section 4 of the Probation of
Offenders Act. Ordinarily, probation with bond is appropriate
where rehabilitation and future behavioural monitoring are
necessary. However, in the present case, the appellant has already
advanced in age, has lived a law-abiding life for decades after the
incident, and there is nothing on record suggesting the need for
supervision or conditional release. Moreover, after an inordinate
lapse of over 30 years, imposing the requirement of a probation
bond would be an unnecessary formality serving no corrective
purpose. Admonition, as contemplated by Section 3 of the Act, is
therefore, the most suitable option in the peculiar facts of this
case.
13. Accordingly, while maintaining the conviction of the appellant
for offences under Sections 326 and 323 IPC, the substantive
(Uploaded on 10/12/2025 at 03:39:53 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:53126] (6 of 6) [CRLA-137/1997]
sentences awarded to him are modified to one of admonition
under Section 3 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958.
14. In addition, the appellant is directed to deposit a fine of
₹5,000/- before the trial court within a period of four weeks from
today. In case of default in payment of the fine within the
stipulated period, the benefit of this order shall stand withdrawn
and the original sentence shall revive.
15. Since the appellant is already on bail pursuant to suspension
of sentence granted by this Court during pendency of the appeal,
his bail bonds shall stand discharged upon deposit of the fine. Any
fine already deposited pursuant to the trial court's judgment shall
not be refunded. Upon such deposit, nothing further survives
against the appellant, and the order of admonition shall operate as
the final sentence.
16. The appeal is, accordingly, partly allowed to the extent
indicated above.
17. Pending applications, if any, are disposed of.
18. Record be sent back to the trial court.
(FARJAND ALI),J
15-Pramod/-
(Uploaded on 10/12/2025 at 03:39:53 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
