[Cites 5, Cited by 0]
Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Balkishan And Ans vs State (2025:Rj-Jd:52663) on 4 December, 2025
Author: Farjand Ali
Bench: Farjand Ali
[2025:RJ-JD:52663]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODH-
PUR
S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 566/1996
1. Balkishan S/o Anantram b/c Soni
2. Smt. Harkanwar @ Kanchan w/o Balkishan b/c Soni
Both are resident of Sunron-ka-Bas, Jodhpur.
----Appellant
Versus
State of Rajasthan
----Respondent
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Yash Tripathi
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Rajesh Bhati, AGA with
Mr. Ravindra Singh
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FARJAND ALI
Order
04/12/2025
1. The appeal is pending before this Court since the year 1996.
The two appellants were convicted by the learned Special Court,
SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Cases, Jodhpur vide judgment
dated 19.11.1996 in Sessions Case No. 112/1995 for the offence
under Section 353 of IPC and were sentenced to undergo six
months rigorous imprisonment alongwith fine of Rs. 1,000/- each,
and in default, three months' SI.
2. Briefly stated, the prosecution case is that the complainant,
Shri Rameshwar Prasad Meena, Assistant Collector, Customs,
Jodhpur, lodged a report on 24.04.1995 at Police Station Sadar
Bazar, Jodhpur, alleging that upon receiving information that
accused Balkishan had smuggled gold, the complainant and other
officers of his staff went to the shop adjacent to the residence of
accused Balkishan to conduct a search of his shop and house for
(Uploaded on 08/12/2025 at 04:15:04 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:52663] (2 of 4) [CRLA-566/1996]
suspected smuggled gold. On being informed of this, accused
Balkishan became angry, used force against the complainant, and
loudly stated that he knew the complainant very well. The accused
allegedly referred to the complainant as a "barbarous (jangli),
Adivasi, lower caste (neech jati) officer," and said that he did not
care for such an uncivilized person. It is further alleged that upon
hearing the accused's cries, his wife and his neighbours, namely
Tarachand Soni, Raju Soni, Manaram Soni, Kishan Gopal Soni,
Satyanarayan Soni, Ummedram, and 10-12 other persons
assembled and abused the complainant by calling him a person of
a lower caste in order to discourage him. During this commotion,
the complainant and his staff entered the shop of the accused and
recovered a gold biscuit from him, noting that he was attempting
to remove its markings by using a hammer. After investigation,
the Police submitted a charge-sheet against the appellants- Raju,
Kishan Gopal, Lalchand, Satyanarayan, Umedram, and Manaram
under Section 3(1)(x) of the SC/ST Act and Sections 147, 149,
353 of the IPC before the Court of the Additional Chief Judicial
Magistrate No. 4, Jodhpur. The learned Magistrate committed the
case to the Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Cases,
Jodhpur, for trial.
2.1 The learned Special Judge framed charges under Sections
147 and 353 of the IPC and Section 3(1)(x) of the SC/ST Act
against the accused-appellant Harkanwar @ Kancha; appellant
Balkishan and the other accused were charged for the offences
under Sections 147 and 353/149 of the IPC and Section 3(1)(x) of
the SC/ST Act. The appellants and other accused denied all
charges. The prosecution examined as many as 21 witnesses.
(Uploaded on 08/12/2025 at 04:15:04 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:52663] (3 of 4) [CRLA-566/1996]
After hearing both parties, the learned Judge acquitted all the
accused except the appellants from all charges, but convicted the
appellants under Section 353 of the IPC and sentenced them to
six months' RI with a fine of Rs. 1,000/- each, and in default,
three months' SI, vide judgment dated 19.11.1996. Hence, this
appeal.
3. At the outset, learned counsel for the appellants submits that
he does not assail the finding of conviction and confines his
submissions to the question of sentence. In view thereof, the
conviction of the appellants is affirmed and the appeal stands
dismissed to that extent.
4. Heard the learned counsel, Shri Yash Tripathi and learned
Public Prosecutor Shri Rajesh Bhati as well as gone through the
judgment under challenge whereby though the appellants were
tried for committing offence under Section 147 and 353 of IPC
read with 149 of IPC and under Section 3(1)(x) of SC/ST Act,
however, after a rigorous trial, the learned trial Court acquitted
the appellants from the charges except of Section 353 of IPC. The
appellant, Harkanwar, is a woman who has now advanced in age.
Both appellants stand convicted for the offence under Section 353
of the IPC, pertaining to obstruction of a public servant in the
discharge of his official duties. Having regard to the totality of
circumstances, the ageing condition of the accused persons, the
fact that the occurrence in question is of 24.04.1995, and the
further circumstance that the appellants have borne the rigours of
trial and appellate proceedings for almost three decades, this
Court is persuaded to take a lenient view.
(Uploaded on 08/12/2025 at 04:15:04 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:52663] (4 of 4) [CRLA-566/1996]
5. 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
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.
6. Accordingly, the appeal is partly allowed. The conviction of
the appellants under Section 353 of IPC is maintained. They need
not to surrender back to serve the remainder part of the sentence.
Their bail bonds shall stand discharged forthwith.
7. Record be sent back.
(FARJAND ALI),J
57-divya/-
(Uploaded on 08/12/2025 at 04:15:04 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
