[Cites 12, Cited by 0]

Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur

Kailash vs State on 11 December, 2025

[2025:RJ-JD:49024]

       HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
                        JODHPUR
             S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 594/2007

Kailash S/o Lalaram, resident of Lachhdi, P.S. Jaswantgarh,
District Nagaur
                                                                   ----Petitioner
                                    Versus
State of Rajasthan
                                                                 ----Respondent


For Petitioner(s)         :     Ms. Sonam Parihar on behalf of
                                Mr. RS Choudhary
For Respondent(s)         :     Mr. SS Rathore, PP



              HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI CHIRANIA

Order

1. Date of conclusion of Arguments 15.09.2025

2. Date on which the judgment was reserved 15.09.2025

3. Whether the full judgment or only operative Full part is pronounced

4. Date of pronouncement 11.12.2025

1. The instant criminal revision petition under Section 397 read

with 401 Cr.P.C. has been preferred against the judgment dated

18.06.2007 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge,

Didwana in Criminal Appeal No.14/2005, whereby the judgment

dated 27.09.2005 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First

Class, Ladnu, in Criminal Original Case No. 228/2003 was

modified to the extent that the default sentence of 10 days for

each offence was reduced to 3 days and 7 days respectively for

non-payment of fine for the offence under section 323 and 325/34

IPC.

(Uploaded on 15/12/2025 at 06:13:46 PM)

[2025:RJ-JD:49024] (2 of 8) [CRLR-594/2007]

The petitioner was convicted and sentenced vide modified order

dated 18.06.2007 as below:

Conviction   for           offences Sentences
under Sections:
323 IPC                           6 months' S.I. and a fine of Rs.
                                  50/- and in default of payment
                                  of fine, to further undergo 3
                                  days of S.I
325/34 IPC                        1 year S.I and a fine of Rs.100/-
                                  and in default of payment of
                                  fine, to further undergo 7 days
                                  S.I.

All sentences were ordered to run concurrently.

2. Succinctly stated, the facts of the case are that on 17.05.2003,

complainant Ganga Ram (PW2) lodged a complaint (Ex.P-9) with

Police Station, Jaswantgarh to the effect that at around 07:00

A.M., he had an altercation with one Hema Ram, who abused him

while he was repairing a gap in the boundary fence in his

agricultural field. Later, around 4:00 PM, when Ganga Ram was

returning to the field then Hema Ram along with Kailash

(petitioner), Bhagwana Ram, Narsi Lal and Lalu Ram arrived, and

attacked his nephew Ramu Ram @ Sona Ram with sticks. When

Ganga Ram tried to intervene, he was also pushed. On hearing his

cries, Triloka Ram and Arjun Ram came and rescued Ramu Ram.

As a result of assault, Ramu Ram sustained injuries on his

head, arms and body along a scratch on his right-hand finger. The

incident occurred on the common boundary of the agricultural

fields of the parties and was witnessed by the women of the

village.

On this report, the police registered a case on 17.05.2003

vide F.I.R. No. 33/2003 against Kailash (petitioner), Hema Ram,

(Uploaded on 15/12/2025 at 06:13:46 PM)

[2025:RJ-JD:49024] (3 of 8) [CRLR-594/2007]

Bhagwana Ram, Narsi Lal and Lalu Ram for the offences under

Section 143, 447, 323 and 341 IPC. On 27.08.2003, the police

filed the chargesheet against the petitioner and co-accused Hema

Ram under Section 323, 325/34 IPC.

The learned Trial Court conducted the trial and punished the

petitioner and one Hema Ram to undergo 6 months' S.I. and a

fine of Rs. 50/- and in default of payment of fine, to further

undergo 10 days of S.I for the offence under section 323 IPC, and

1 year S.I and a fine of Rs.100/- and in default of payment of fine,

to further undergo 10 days S.I. for the offence under 325/34 IPC

vide order dated 27.09.2005.

The said order was modified by the learned Additional

Sessions Judge, Didwana in Criminal Appeal No.14/2005 to the

extent that the default sentence of 10 days for each offence was

reduced to 3 days and 7 days respectively for non-payment of fine

for the offence under section 323 and 325/34 IPC, vide order

dated 18.06.2007.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that

both the courts below committed grave error in convicting the

petitioner. It was submitted that the prosecution failed to prove its

case beyond reasonable doubt. The incident in question arose

from a sudden quarrel over a pathway close to the agricultural

fields of the two parties, and the role attributed to the petitioner is

vague and omnibus in nature.

4. It was argued that there existed a cross-case, FIR No. 32/2003

dated 17.05.2003, arising out of the same incident, lodged by one

Kailash Chandra, which culminated in the conviction of the

(Uploaded on 15/12/2025 at 06:13:46 PM)

[2025:RJ-JD:49024] (4 of 8) [CRLR-594/2007]

complainant party, including Ganga Ram and Sona Ram, for

offences under Sections 323 and 325/34 IPC. This, according to

the learned counsel, clearly establishes that both parties sustained

injuries in a mutual conflict arising out of a petty land dispute. The

said material fact was not accorded due weightage by the courts

below.

5. Learned counsel further argued that the FIR in the present case

(FIR No. 33/2003) was lodged as a counter-blast to the earlier FIR

No. 32/2003 lodged by the petitioner's side, in order to create a

defence for the complainant party. The testimonies of the

prosecution witnesses were inconsistent and biased, and did not

attribute any specific overt act to the petitioner.

6. Lastly, counsel submitted that the co-accused, Hema Ram, who

was similarly placed and convicted and punished for the same

offence by the same judgment, has already been granted the

benefit of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 by modification of

sentence by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide the order dated

23.05.2025 in S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 573/2007

titled as Hema Ram Vs. State of Rajasthan. His sentence was

reduced to the period already undergone, considering the fact that

the incident is over 22 years old and the long incarceration has

caused him sufficient mental, physical and economic hardships.

The Court also took note of present age and age at the time of the

incident. It is argued that denying the same relief to the present

petitioner would be unjust and contrary to the principle of equality

before law.

(Uploaded on 15/12/2025 at 06:13:46 PM)

[2025:RJ-JD:49024] (5 of 8) [CRLR-594/2007]

7. Per contra, the learned Public Prosecutor supported the

impugned judgments, contending that the concurrent findings of

fact recorded by the two courts below were based on proper

appreciation of evidence and did not warrant interference in the

revisional jurisdiction of this Court.

8. Heard learned counsel for the parties, considered the rival

submissions and perused the record of the case. Though the

power of this Court to re-appreciate evidence in revision is limited,

interference is justified when there is manifest illegality,

perversity, or gross miscarriage of justice.

9. The record clearly shows that the co-accused Hema Ram was

granted the benefit of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 by

modification of sentence by coordinate Bench of this Court in S.B.

Criminal Revision Petition No. 573/2007, where the Court

adopted a reformative approach while passing the order dated

23.05.2025. Both, the petitioner Kailash and co-accused

Hemaram, were convicted by the same order by both the Courts

below. The evidence does not indicate any distinction between

their roles. Therefore, denying similar relief to the petitioner would

be unfair and inconsistent with the settled principle that similarly

situated accused should receive similar treatment in sentencing.

10. Further, it is worth noting that the incident is more than 22

years old. The quarrel arose out of a civil dispute over a passage

and developed into a sudden fight. This is a common occurrence in

villages across India. Hema Ram has already undergone part of

the sentence and was also given benefit of section 4 of the

(Uploaded on 15/12/2025 at 06:13:46 PM)

[2025:RJ-JD:49024] (6 of 8) [CRLR-594/2007]

Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 by the trial court in the cross

case.

11. Hon'ble the Supreme Court of India in the case of K.

Pounammal Vs. State Represented By Inspector Of Police

2025 INSC 1014, highlighted the need to apply the reformative

approach while deciding the sentence. The relevant portion of the

judgment is as hereunder:

"7. The process of sentencing by the courts is guided by theories such as punitive, deterrent or reformative. Each school of thought has its own object and purpose to explain awarding of sentence and its utility. Amongst these theories, reformative approach has become increasingly acceptable to the modern jurisprudence. Reformation is something always considered progressive. When there are mitigating circumstances, the court would lean towards reducing of the sentence. The focus would be on the crime, and not on the criminal. The society and system would nurture the guilt with positivity, while selecting the sentence.

8. (...) the incident had taken place on 23.09.2002. Since then, more than two decades have passed by. The appellant underwent imprisonment for 31 days. The appellant is a widow lady. It was stated that she is now 75 years of age. The appellant has been staying alone, the husband having died, stated her learned counsel. She belongs to scheduled caste and has been spending her life negotiating all hardships.

9. The prolongation of a criminal case for an unreasonable period is in itself a kind of suffering. It amounts to mental incarceration for the person facing such proceedings. For a person who is convicted and who has appealed against his or her conviction and sentence and who everyday awaits the fate of litigation, spends time in distress. In the present-day system of administration of justice, in which proceedings have often go on protracted unreasonably and therefore unbearably, the passage of long time itself makes the person suffer a mental agony

10. The aspects in the present case as highlighted above that the incident had occurred more than 22 years ago and that the age of the widow appellant is 75 years who stays alone, the Court finds it appropriate that she may not be made to undergo

(Uploaded on 15/12/2025 at 06:13:46 PM)

[2025:RJ-JD:49024] (7 of 8) [CRLR-594/2007]

the imprisonment again. In the totality of the facts and circumstances, the imprisonment already undergone by her is treated to be adequate sentence."

12. In view of the above discussion, this Court finds no reason to

interfere with the conviction recorded by the courts below, which

is based on proper appreciation of evidence. However, considering

that the accused was of young age at the time of the incident, that

the matter has arisen out of a civil dispute over a passage which is

a common occurrence in villages, that the incident occurred over

22 years ago, that petitioner has no criminal antecedents, and

also that co-accused Hema Ram has been granted similar benefit

by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court in S.B. Criminal Revision

Petition No. 573/2007, and in the interest of justice,

maintaining parity, it would be appropriate to take a lenient and

same view in the matter. The substantive sentence imposed upon