[Cites 3, Cited by 0]
Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Banna And Ors vs State (2025:Rj-Jd:52080) on 3 December, 2025
Author: Farjand Ali
Bench: Farjand Ali
[2025:RJ-JD:52080]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 111/1996
1. Banna S/o Shri Uda gujar, resident of Kanechhan Thana,
Phuliyakallan, Distrcit Bhilwara.
2. Narayan S/o Shri Hardev Gujar resident of Kanechhan Thana,
Phuliyakallan, Distrcit Bhilwara.
3. Onkar S/o Shri Rajulal Gujar Bachhkheda Thana,
Phuliyakallan, Distrcit Bhilwara.
----Appellant
Versus
The State of Rajashtan
----Respondent
For Appellant(s) : Ms. Janvi Soni, amicus curiae
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Rajesh Bhati, PP
Mr. Ravindra Singh, PP
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FARJAND ALI
Judgment
03/12/2025
1. The instant appeal has been preferred against the judgment
dated 12.01.1996 passed by the learned Additional Sessions
Judge, Shahpura, whereby the accused-appellants were held
guilty for offences under Sections 323 and 325 IPC.
2. The accused Narayan and Onkar were convicted under
Sections 323 and 325 IPC, whereas the accused Chhotu had been
held guilty under Section 323 IPC. Considering the overall
circumstances and antecedents, the learned trial court deemed it
appropriate to extend the benefit of probation to the
aforementioned three accused. The appellant No.1 Banna was also
convicted for the offence under Section 323 IPC; however, the
(Uploaded on 04/12/2025 at 04:43:27 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:52080] (2 of 4) [CRLA-111/1996]
benefit of probation was declined to him on account of his
previous criminal conduct.
3. The incident pertains to 21.06.1993. The parties hail from
the same locality. The injuries suffered by the victims are simple
in nature and not located on any vital part of the body. At the time
of the occurrence, the appellant Banna was approximately 38
years old, and with the passage of three decades, he has now
considerably advanced in age.
4. None appears on behalf of the appellants.
5. This appeal is pending before this Court from last 30 years.
Learned counsel Ms. Janvi Soni, has been appointed as amicus
curiae to assist the Court, on behalf of the appellants under the
free legal aid scheme of Rajasthan state Legal Services Authority.
The remuneration to her shall be paid by RSLSA as the per the
rules.
6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record
as well as the impugned judgment.
7. From the material available on record, it transpires that FIR
Exhibit P-8 was lodged at the instance of PW-6 Surajkaran,
alleging that the appellants, armed with an axe and sticks,
assaulted the victims and injuries were indeed inflicted upon
them. Upon completion of investigation, all the three appellants
were charge-sheeted. A full-fledged trial ensued, during which 11
witnesses were examined on behalf of the prosecution. The
statements of the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. were
recorded, wherein they denied the charges. The learned trial
court, after a meticulous appraisal of the evidence brought on
record, proceeded to convict the accused as noted hereinabove.
(Uploaded on 04/12/2025 at 04:43:27 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:52080] (3 of 4) [CRLA-111/1996]
8. Upon hearing the matter and examining the record, this
Court finds no infirmity in the appreciation of evidence or the
findings recorded by the learned trial court. The injury reports of
victims Sukhdev, Chhotu, and Surajkaran lend substantial
corroboration to the prosecution's version.
8.1 The testimony of the medical officer (PW-7) as well as PW-8
Vijay and PW-9 K.C. Jain further fortifies the prosecution case,
establishing that the victims were indeed beaten by the
appellants. The statements of the prosecution witnesses are
consistent and inspire confidence regarding the manner of assault
and the injuries sustained.
8.2 The defence plea of false implication remains
unsubstantiated. Except for a bald assertion alleging fabrication,
no material has been placed on record to show that the accused
were falsely roped in. The elaborate discussion undertaken by the
learned trial court neither discloses perversity nor any
misapprehension of law or fact. Thus, no case for interference is
made out. I find no error in the impugned judgment insofar as it
pertains to the conviction of the appellants under Sections 323
and 325 IPC.
9. The conduct attributed to the appellants stands duly
admonished, and he is sensitized to eschew such behaviour in
future. Considering the extraordinary lapse of time and the fact
that the appellants have now attained the age of nearly 67 years,
this Court is of the view that perpetuating the rigour of criminal
proceedings after 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
(Uploaded on 04/12/2025 at 04:43:27 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:52080] (4 of 4) [CRLA-111/1996]
in the present day. The object of criminal law is not to inflict
unending hardship but to correct conduct and secure harmony.
The appellants have 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 appellants is warned and admonished,
and the 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.
10. Accordingly, the appeal is partly allowed. The judgment of
conviction under Section 323 IPC is reduced to the period already
undergone.
11. Record be sent back.
(FARJAND ALI),J
4-Chhavi/-
(Uploaded on 04/12/2025 at 04:43:27 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
