[Cites 7, Cited by 0]
Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Poonjia @ Poonja And Anr vs State (2025:Rj-Jd:53337) on 8 December, 2025
Author: Farjand Ali
Bench: Farjand Ali
[2025:RJ-JD:53337]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 379/1993
1. Poonjia @ Poonja
2. Peetar
Both S/o Kaloo R/o Vill. Padla, District Banswara
----Appellant
Versus
State Of Rajasthan
----Respondent
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Sanjay Mathur
Mr. Harshit Goyal
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Rajesh Bhati}
Mr. Ravindra Singh}AGA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FARJAND ALI
Judgment
08/12/2025
1. The present appeal has been preferred at the instance of the
accused-appellants, calling into question the legality, propriety,
and sustainability of the judgment of conviction dated 24.08.1993
and the consequent order of sentence dated 02.09.1993, rendered
by the learned Sessions Judge, Banswara in Sessions Case
No.94/1990 whereby they were convicted and sentenced as
under:-
Name of the Offence for Substantive Fine and default
accused which sentence sentence
convicted
Poonjia @ Poonja 304-II IPC 8 years' RI Fine of Rs.2000/-
and in default to
undergo six months
SI
325/34 IPC One Year SI Fine of Rs.500/- and
in default to further
undergo three
months'RI
(Uploaded on 17/12/2025 at 12:09:47 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:53337] (2 of 8) [CRLA-379/1993]
Peeter 304-II r.w. Given benefit of Ordered to pay
Sec.34 of the Probation u/s360 compensation u/s 5 of
IPC Cr.P.C. and the Probation of
Offenders Act to injured
Hom Singh and widow
Smt. Kapoori Rs.1,000/-
and Rs.1500/-
respectively
2. Succinctly stated, the prosecution case unfolds from an
allegation that the accused-appellants were responsible for
causing the death of one Jorji and for inflicting injuries upon Hom
Singh, allegedly by pelting stones. The edifice of the prosecution
rests substantially upon the testimony of the injured eyewitness
Hom Singh, who was examined during trial as PW-1.
2.1. As per the narrative propounded by the prosecution, on the
fateful day of the occurrence, Hom Singh along with his family
members was engaged in agricultural operations in their field. At
that juncture, the accused persons, accompanied by Kalu and
Kamli, allegedly arrived at the place of cultivation, purportedly
armed with deadly weapons, and objected to the ongoing
agricultural activity, reprimanding and scolding the complainant
party. Owing to the altercation, Hom Singh retreated towards his
house; however, the accused are alleged to have pursued him.
2.2. It is further alleged that accused Punjula, wielding a stone,
struck Hom Singh from behind, resulting in injury to his leg, and
thereafter hurled another stone which landed on the lumbar region
of his father, Jorji. The situation escalated momentarily but was
subsequently defused owing to the intervention of nearby
villagers, who attempted to pacify the parties and restore order.
(Uploaded on 17/12/2025 at 12:09:47 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:53337] (3 of 8) [CRLA-379/1993]
Thereafter, both injured persons were shifted to the hospital for
medical treatment.
2.3. Tragically, during the intervening night of the second day of
treatment, Jorji succumbed to the injuries sustained, culminating
in the registration of the case against the accused for causing
grievous injury to Hom Singh and for the homicidal death of Jorji.
The medical evidence adduced by the prosecution includes the
injury report (Exhibit P-9) of Hom Singh, which records a
lacerated wound on the inner aspect of the right leg, opined to be
grievous in nature. The post-mortem report (Exhibit P-8)
pertaining to the deceased Jorji enumerates three injuries, of
which two were minor abrasions on non-vital parts of the body.
However, Injury No.1, a lacerated wound on the skull, proved
fatal, as it resulted in a fracture of the right parietal bone, leading
to his eventual demise.
2.4 In the course of trial, the prosecution examined as many as
eleven witnesses in support of its case and tendered various
documentary exhibits into evidence to substantiate the allegations
levelled against the accused-appellants. The defence, on the other
hand, did not examine any witness nor was any documentary
evidence adduced on its behalf.
2.5 Upon a cumulative appreciation of the oral testimonies and
the documentary evidence brought on record, the learned Trial
Court arrived at the conclusion that the prosecution had
succeeded in proving its case beyond reasonable doubt.
Consequently, the accused-appellants were held guilty and were
(Uploaded on 17/12/2025 at 12:09:47 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:53337] (4 of 8) [CRLA-379/1993]
convicted and sentenced as under, vide the judgment of
conviction and order of sentence impugned herein. Hence the
instant appeal.
3. Upon a careful reappraisal of the evidence on record, this Court
finds no illegality, perversity, or material infirmity in the findings of
guilt recorded by the learned Trial Court so as to warrant
interference on the question of conviction.
3.1 The prosecution case rests primarily on the testimony of
injured eyewitness Hom Singh (PW-1), whose presence at the
scene is natural and stands conclusively established by the
contemporaneous medical evidence. His testimony is consistent,
cogent, and has remained unshaken in cross-examination. The
injury report (Ex. P-9) fully corroborates his version.
3.2 The ocular account finds further corroboration from the
medical evidence. The post-mortem report of the deceased Jorji
(Ex. P-8) records a fatal head injury resulting in fracture of the
parietal bone, which is consistent with the prosecution version of
stone-pelting and sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to
cause death.
3.3 The contention of the defence that the incident was sudden
and without premeditation does not dilute the prosecution case as
to the participation and culpability of the accused. At best, such a
plea bears relevance to the quantum of sentence and not to the
sustainability of the conviction.
3.4 The learned Trial Court has correctly applied the law in holding
the appellant guilty under Section 304 Part II IPC, as the evidence
(Uploaded on 17/12/2025 at 12:09:47 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:53337] (5 of 8) [CRLA-379/1993]
clearly establishes that the act was done with the knowledge that
it was likely to cause death. The conviction under Section 325/34
IPC for causing grievous hurt to PW-1 Hom Singh is equally
supported by reliable oral and medical evidence.
3.5 This Court finds no reason to differ from the well-reasoned
conclusions of the Trial Court. The conviction of the appellant
Poonjia @ Poonja under Sections 304 Part II IPC and 325/34 IPC,
and the conviction of co-accused Peetar along with the grant of
probation in his favour, are hereby affirmed.
4. Having affirmed the conviction of the appellant Poonjia @
Poonja for the offence under Section 304 Part II IPC and Section
325/34 IPC, this Court now proceeds to examine the question of
quantum of sentence.
4.1 It is trite that sentencing is not a mechanical exercise but a
judicious balancing of the nature of the offence, the circumstances
in which it was committed, the degree of culpability, and the
personal circumstances of the offender. Even where the conviction
is unassailable, the sentence must satisfy the test of
proportionality, fairness, and justice.
4.2 Undoubtedly, the offence in question falls under Section 304
Part II IPC, which is a serious offence involving loss of human life.
However, the facts established on record unmistakably indicate
that the occurrence was not premeditated. It arose out of a
sudden quarrel relating to agricultural activity and land use, and
the act complained of was the result of a momentary flare-up
rather than a calculated design to cause death. The weapon used
(Uploaded on 17/12/2025 at 12:09:47 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:53337] (6 of 8) [CRLA-379/1993]
was a stone picked up at the spot and not a lethal weapon carried
with intent.
4.3 A significant mitigating circumstance emerges from the age of
the appellant at the time of the incident. In his statement under
Section 313 Cr.P.C., appellant Poonjia stated his age to be 20-21
years, whereas the Trial Court considered his age to be 25-26
years. Even accepting the latter estimation, it is evident that the
appellant was a young adult between 18 to 22 years of age at the
relevant time. Youthful indiscretion, lack of maturity, and
impulsive conduct are recognised mitigating factors, particularly
when the offence is not pre-planned.
4.4 The parity between co-accused also deserves consideration.
The co-accused Peetar, who stated his age to be 19-20 years, has
been extended the benefit of probation under Section 360 Cr.P.C.,
notwithstanding his conviction under Section 304 Part II read with
Section 34 IPC. While parity is not an inflexible rule, sentencing
disparity must be founded on sound reasons. The material on
record does not disclose such a marked distinction in culpability as
would justify a sentence of eight years' rigorous imprisonment for
Poonjia, while granting probation to a similarly placed co-accused
of comparable age.
4.5 The socio-economic background of the appellant cannot be
ignored. The appellant Poonjia belongs to a Scheduled Tribe, hails
from a tribal area, and is a poor person, earning his livelihood
through manual labour. He is stated to be the sole breadwinner of
his family. The object of sentencing is not to wreak vengeance but
(Uploaded on 17/12/2025 at 12:09:47 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:53337] (7 of 8) [CRLA-379/1993]
to reform and reintegrate. Re-incarcerating the appellant at this
belated stage would not only uproot him from settled life but
would also visit disproportionate hardship upon innocent family
members who depend upon him for survival.
4.6 The period of incarceration already undergone by the appellant
is also a relevant factor. He remained in custody for a substantial
period during the course of trial and post-conviction before his
sentence was suspended in the present appeal. Thereafter, he has
remained on bail for decades without any allegation of misuse of
liberty. His conduct during this prolonged interregnum weighs in
favour of leniency.
4.7 The extraordinary delay in the conclusion of proceedings is
another compelling circumstance. The incident occurred in the
year 1990. The trial concluded after about three years, and the
present appeal has remained pending since 1993. For over three
decades, the appellant has lived under the constant shadow of
criminal proceedings, the proverbial sword of Damocles hanging
over his head. Such prolonged mental agony and uncertainty
constitute a form of punishment recognised by judicial precedents
while moulding the sentence.
4.8 Taking an overall view of the matter, the youthful age of the
appellant at the time of the incident, absence of premeditation,
parity with the co-accused, socio-economic vulnerability,
substantial incarceration already undergone, long lapse of time,
and the reformative theory of punishment, this Court is of the
considered opinion that sending the appellant back to prison to
(Uploaded on 17/12/2025 at 12:09:47 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:53337] (8 of 8) [CRLA-379/1993]
serve the remaining sentence would serve no meaningful or
rehabilitative purpose.
5. Consequently, the appeal is allowed in part, while affirming the
conviction of the appellant Poonjia @ Poonja for the offences
under Sections 304 Part II IPC and 325/34 IPC, the sentence of
imprisonment awarded to him is modified to the period already
undergone.
5.1 The appellant Poonjia @ Poonja is presently on bail. He is not
required to surrender, and his bail bonds stand discharged.
5.2 There shall be no interference with the conviction of co-
accused Peetar or with the order granting him the benefit of
probation under Section 360 Cr.P.C., which is hereby maintained.
6. All pending applications are disposed of.
7. The record be returned to the trial court.
(FARJAND ALI),J
9-Mamta/-
(Uploaded on 17/12/2025 at 12:09:47 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
