[Cites 7, Cited by 0]
Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Amar Singh vs State (2025:Rj-Jd:52189) on 3 December, 2025
Author: Farjand Ali
Bench: Farjand Ali
[2025:RJ-JD:52189]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 359/1996
Amar Singh S/o Shri Gulab Singh R/o Godon-ka-Bada, Barmer
(Presently lodged in Central Jail, Jodhpur)
----Appellant
Versus
State of Rajasthan
----Respondent
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Chakrawarti Singh
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Rajesh bhati, AGA
Mr. Ravindra Singh Bhati, AGA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FARJAND ALI
Order
03/12/2025
1. The instant appeal under Section 374(2) of the Cr.P.C. has
been preferred by the appellant being aggrieved of the judgment
and order dated 19.07.1996 passed by the learned Special Judge,
Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act
Cases-cum-Sessions Judge, Balotra in Sessions Case No.8/1996,
whereby he was convicted for the offence under Section 332, 447
IPC and 3(1)(X) of SC/ST Act and sentenced to undergo rigorous
imprisonment of six months and to pay a fine of Rs.200/- and in
default of payment of fine, further to undergo simple
imprisonment of one month.
2. Briefly stated, the facts reveal that on 16.11.1995, Tejpal, a
teacher posted at Government Primary School lodged a written
report at Police Station Samdari alleging that while he was
(Uploaded on 11/12/2025 at 01:27:10 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:52189] (2 of 4) [CRLA-359/1996]
conducting the morning prayer and marking attendance, the
accused Amar Singh entered the school premises armed with a
stick, hurled caste-based abuses and assaulted him, causing
injuries later certified by the Medical Officer. The police registered
offences under Sections 332, 353 and 451 IPC and Section 31 of
the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, prepared the site plan,
recorded statements of witnesses and filed a charge-sheet. The
Special Court thereafter framed charges under the aforesaid
provisions. In his examination under Section 313 CrPC, the
accused denied the allegations. The learned Special Judge,
Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act
Cases-cum-Sessions Judge, Balotra convicted him under Sections
332, 447 IPC and 3(1)(X) of SC/ST Act. Hence, this instant
appeal.
3. At the outset, learned counsel for the appellant submits that
he is not pressing the instant appeal to the extent of conviction of
the appellant and limiting his prayer on the point of sentence only.
He submits that the incident is of the year 1995 and a period of 30
years has gone by since then. The appellant is now almost 50
years old. The present appeal is pending for last 30 years. In
these circumstances, no fruitful purpose would be served by
sending the appellant to serve the remaining sentence at the fag
end of his life, therefore, a lenient view be taken regarding the
sentence awarded to the appellant.
4. Learned public prosecutor though opposed the submissions
made on behalf of the appellant but does not refute the fact that it
(Uploaded on 11/12/2025 at 01:27:10 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:52189] (3 of 4) [CRLA-359/1996]
was the first criminal case registered against him and he had no
criminal antecedents and the case is very old one.
5. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and the learned
Public prosecutor and perused the record and other material
available on the record.
6. This Court is of the view that the incident pertains to the
year 1995 and its been already 30 years now. The appellant has
advanced in age and do not possess any criminal antecedents. The
substantive sentence awarded is six months, whereas the
maximum sentence prescribed under the provision is five years.
Given the extraordinary lapse of thirty years, directing them to
execute bonds of probation at this stage would also not be
pragmatic.
6. The conduct attributed to the appellant stands duly
admonished, and he is sensitized to eschew such behaviour in
future. Considering the extraordinary lapse of time, this Court is of
the view that perpetuating the rigour of criminal proceedings after
almost three long decades would not subserve the ends of justice.
The incident is a relic of the distant past, and the continued
pendency of the matter serves no meaningful purpose in the
present day. The object of criminal law is not to inflict unending
hardship but to correct conduct and secure harmony. The
appellant has already borne the weight of prosecution for an
unduly prolonged period, and to keep the matter alive any further
would not be in consonance with sound judicial policy. In these
circumstances, the appellant is warned and admonished, and the
(Uploaded on 11/12/2025 at 01:27:10 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:52189] (4 of 4) [CRLA-359/1996]
Court refrains from imposing any further substantive sentence,
observing that no fruitful purpose would be achieved by
prolonging the matter after such a long span of time.
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.
8. Accordingly, the appeal is partly allowed. The conviction of
the appellant under Sections 332, 447 IPC and 3(1)(X) of SC/ST
Act is maintained. He need not to surrender back to serve the
remainder part of the sentence. His bail bonds are discharged.
9. Record be sent back.
(FARJAND ALI),J
9-chhavi/-
(Uploaded on 11/12/2025 at 01:27:10 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
