Balu Ram vs State
2025 Latest Caselaw 16535 Raj

Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur

Balu Ram vs State on 10 December, 2025

Author: Farjand Ali

Bench: Farjand Ali

[2025:RJ-JD:53169]

      HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
                       JODHPUR
                     S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 329/1996

Balu Ram son of Shri Chunni Lal, resident of Rayala, District
Bhilwara
                                                                      ----Appellant
                                       Versus
State of Rajathan
                                                                    ----Respondent


For Appellant(s)             :     Ms. Nikita Vaishnav, Amicus Curiae
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 : 10/12/2025

1. By way of filing the instant Criminal Appeal under Section

374 (2) of the CrPC, the appellant has challenged the judgment

dated 22.05.1996 passed by the learned Additional Sessions

Judge, Bhilwara in Sessions Case No.11/1992, whereby the

learned trial court has convicted him for the offence under Section

324 of the IPC and sentenced to undergo one year's rigorous

imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- and in default of

payment of fine, further to undergo imprisonment of two months.

2. None appears on behalf of the appellant to argue the matter

Looking to the fact that the case is very old, in the interest of

justice, Ms. Nikita Vaishnav, Advocate, is appointed as Amicus

Curiae to assist the Court on behalf of the appellant under the

Free Legal Aid Scheme of the Rajasthan State Legal Services

(Uploaded on 10/12/2025 at 04:05:31 PM)

[2025:RJ-JD:53169] (2 of 8) [CRLA-329/1996]

Authority (RSLSA). Her fee shall be paid by the RSLSA in

accordance with its rules. With her valuable assistance, the Court

proceeded to adjudicate the appeal.

3. Briefly stated, the facts emerging from the record are that

the incident in question took place on 18.01.1987 at about 8:30-

8:45 AM near the shop of one Sindhi, situated close to the house

of the injured witnesses at village Rayta. On hearing a commotion,

PW-1 Rafique Mohammad came out of his house and saw his

father PW-2 Fayyaz Mohammad being assaulted by the accused

persons Balu, Amar Chand, Dhrup Singh, Balu's aunt and Balu's

wife, who were allegedly armed with a knife, sticks and stones. It

was alleged that accused Baloo inflicted knife blows on the head of

PW-2 Fayyaz Mohammad, whereas accused Amar Chand and

Dhrup Singh caused injuries to him with sticks, and the women

accompanying them threw stones. When PW-1 Rafique tried to

intervene, accused Balu allegedly bit him on his hand. PW-2

Fayyaz Mohammad fell to the ground due to the assault and

became semi-conscious. PW-3 Rasheeda Begum also reached the

spot and supported the version that the accused persons

collectively assaulted her father Fayyaz Mohammad with sharp and

blunt weapons. Thereafter, PW-1 Rafique, PW-2 Fayyaz and

others proceeded towards the police outpost, but on the way they

met police officials who took them to the hospital, where PW-2

Fayyaz Mohammad was admitted. Both PW-1 and PW-2 were

medically examined, and multiple incised as well as blunt injuries

were recorded. The police thereafter registered a case under

(Uploaded on 10/12/2025 at 04:05:31 PM)

[2025:RJ-JD:53169] (3 of 8) [CRLA-329/1996]

Sections 307, 324, 323, 147, 148 and 149 IPC, prepared the site

plan, seized blood-stained clothes and the knife allegedly

produced by Rafique, arrested several accused persons, and

eventually filed the charge-sheet before the competent court.

4. During the course of trial, the prosecution examined P.W.1

Rafiq Mohammad, P.W.2 Fayaz Mohammad, P.W.3 Rasheeda

Begum, P.W.4 Kanhiya Lal, P.W.5 Baloo Ram, P.W.6 Dr. Ramesh

Chandra, P.W.7 Wasandas, P.W.8 Man Singh and P.W.9 Bahadur

Singh. The documentary evidence, including injury reports, site

plan, seizure memos and arrest memos, were also exhibited. In

their statements under Section 313 CrPC, the accused denied the

prosecution allegations and claimed false implication, asserting

that in fact they were assaulted by the complainant party. The

defence examined D.W.1 Babu Ram, D.W.2 Amarchand, D.W.3 Dr.

Kailash Chand Jain and D.W.4 Dr. Kailash Chandra Laddha in

support of their plea. After appreciating the oral and documentary

evidence, the learned Additional Sessions Judge held that the

prosecution had failed to prove the ingredients of the offence

under Section 307 IPC but found sufficient evidence to hold the

accused guilty of causing simple injuries by use of a sharp-edged

weapon. Accordingly, the trial court convicted the appellant for the

offence under Section 324 IPC and sentenced him to undergo one

year's rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs.500/-, and in

default, further imprisonment of two months.

5. Learned Amicus Curiae arguing the appeal on behalf of the

appellants submitted that the trial court erred in convicting the

(Uploaded on 10/12/2025 at 04:05:31 PM)

[2025:RJ-JD:53169] (4 of 8) [CRLA-329/1996]

appellant under Section 324 of the IPC without properly

appreciating the evidence on record. It was contended that the

prosecution witnesses, namely P.W. 1, P.W. 2, and P.W. 3, had

given inconsistent and contradictory statements regarding the

sequence of events, the identity of the assailant, and the manner

in which the injuries were caused. Several vital aspects, such as

the exact time of the incident and the nature of the injuries, were

not consistently described, which rendered the evidence doubtful.

Learned counsel further argued that the appellant had no prior

enmity with the injured, and the incident arose out of a sudden

quarrel rather than any deliberate attempt to cause grievous hurt.

The medical evidence revealed that the injuries were simple and

did not corroborate the prosecution's assertion of a severe assault

with a weapon. It was also submitted that the delay in lodging

the FIR and the fact that some independent witnesses present at

the scene were not examined weakened the prosecution case. The

trial court had failed to consider that omissions and contradictions

in the testimony of material witnesses significantly affected the

reliability of the prosecution's story. Learned counsel emphasized

that there was no clear evidence of premeditation or specific

intent on the part of the appellant to cause serious injury.

Procedural lapses during the investigation, including incomplete

collection of evidence and lack of corroboration, were ignored by

the trial court.

6. Finally, it was submitted that the appellant had an

unblemished antecedent record, had cooperated with the

(Uploaded on 10/12/2025 at 04:05:31 PM)

[2025:RJ-JD:53169] (5 of 8) [CRLA-329/1996]

investigation, and that the sentence of one year's rigorous

imprisonment with a fine was excessive and disproportionate to

the circumstances of the case. It was urged that the conviction

and sentence deserved to be set aside or, at the very least, the

sentence be substantially reduced.

7. On the question of sentence, learned Amicus Curiae

submitted that the incident is of considerable antiquity, having

occurred in the year 1987. The appellant was about 32 years old

at the time, and he is now approximately 70 years of age,

suffering from ailments associated with advanced age. He is a

person of modest means, belonging to the lower strata of society,

and has endured the prolonged ordeal of a criminal case for nearly

38 years. This was the first criminal case ever registered against

him, and apart from the present matter, he has no criminal

antecedents. It was emphasized that he has led a peaceful and

law-abiding life for almost four decades, and no useful purpose

would be served by sending him to prison at this stage to undergo

the remaining sentence. It was therefore urged that the sentence

awarded to the appellant be suitably modified.

8. Learned Public Prosecutor supported the judgment of the

trial court and submitted that the conviction is based on a proper

appreciation of the evidence on record. It was argued that the

testimony of the injured witness is consistent, trustworthy and

fully corroborated by the medical evidence, and therefore, the trial

court rightly placed reliance upon it. The prosecution maintained

that the contradictions pointed out by the appellant are minor in

(Uploaded on 10/12/2025 at 04:05:31 PM)

[2025:RJ-JD:53169] (6 of 8) [CRLA-329/1996]

nature and do not affect the core of the prosecution case. It was

further submitted that the trial court has recorded cogent findings

after considering all relevant material, and no ground is made out

to interfere with the conviction in appeal. The Public Prosecutor,

however, fairly admitted that the incident pertains to a very old

case and that the appellant does not have any criminal

antecedents. Even so, it was urged that the conviction ought to be

upheld as the offence stands duly proved by reliable evidence.

9. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and the learned

Public prosecutor and perused the record and other material

available on the record.

10. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and the learned

Public Prosecutor and perused the record. The Court observes that

the trial court has meticulously appreciated the evidence and

correctly held the appellant guilty under Section 324 of the IPC.

The testimony of the injured witnesses, P.W.1 Rafique Mohammad,

P.W.2 Fayyaz Mohammad, and P.W.3 Rasheeda Begum, is credible

and consistent. Their accounts of the assault, including the use of

a sharp-edged weapon, are corroborated by medical evidence

(P.W.6 Dr. Ramesh Chandra) which confirms incised injuries on the

person of the injured. Minor contradictions or omissions in their

testimony do not materially affect the core of the prosecution

case. The defense plea of false implication is unsupported by

independent evidence. The site plan, seizure of the blood-stained

knife, and other documentary evidence further strengthen the

prosecution case. There is clear proof that the appellant actively

(Uploaded on 10/12/2025 at 04:05:31 PM)

[2025:RJ-JD:53169] (7 of 8) [CRLA-329/1996]

participated in causing injuries by means of a sharp-edged

weapon. Accordingly, the Court finds that the conviction of the

appellant under Section 324 IPC by the learned Additional

Sessions Judge is legally justified and requires no interference.

11. As regards the question of quantum of sentence, it is

pertinent to note that the incident occurred in 1987. At the time,

the appellant was approximately 32 years of age; he is now about

70 years old and suffers from ailments commonly associated with

advanced age. The dispute arose over a trivial matter, and the

injuries caused were not grievous. The appellant has already

endured the prolonged ordeal of this criminal case for nearly 38

years, including a period of incarceration. This was the first

criminal case ever registered against him, and he has no other

criminal antecedents. Throughout this period, the appellant has

had the Sword of Damocles hanging over his head, living under

the shadow of potential imprisonment.

12. Considering his advanced age, health conditions, modest

means, and social background, sending the appellant back to

prison at this stage would serve no useful purpose. The principle

of reformative and rehabilitative punishment is well recognized,

and there is no indication that the appellant has failed to reform

during this prolonged period. The trial court had imposed a

sentence of one year's rigorous imprisonment, part of which has

already been served. Additional incarceration now would be unduly

harsh and would achieve no meaningful objective.

(Uploaded on 10/12/2025 at 04:05:31 PM)

[2025:RJ-JD:53169] (8 of 8) [CRLA-329/1996]

13. In view of the facts of the case, the appellant's age, his lack

of criminal antecedents, social and economic circumstances, and

the prolonged mental and financial hardship endured over nearly

four decades, and having regard to the decisions of the Hon'ble

Supreme Court in Haripada Das v. State of West Bengal

[(1998) 9 SCC 678] and Alister Anthony Pereira v. State of

Maharashtra [2012 2 SCC 648], this Court deems it

appropriate to reduce the sentence to the period of imprisonment

already undergone by the appellant.

14. Accordingly, the conviction of the appellant under Section

324 IPC by the trial court is affirmed, but the sentence is modified

so that the period of imprisonment already served shall be

deemed sufficient and just to meet the ends of justice. The

appellant, being on bail, need not surrender, and his bail bonds

are discharged.

15. The appeal is allowed in part.

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

17. The record be sent back to the trial court.

(FARJAND ALI),J 4-Pramod/-

(Uploaded on 10/12/2025 at 04:05:31 PM)

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)