[Cites 12, Cited by 0]
Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Kan Singh And Ors vs State on 16 December, 2025
Author: Farjand Ali
Bench: Farjand Ali
[2025:RJ-JD:52782]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 413/1996
1. Kan Singh s/o Shri Kishore Singh
2. Nahar Singh s/o Shri Jagat Singh
3. Madhu Singh s/o Kan Singh
4. Roop Singh s/o Hamer Singh
5. Laxman Singh s/o Heer Singh
6. Nirbhay Singh s/o Roop Singh
All residents of Gudel, Tehsil Salumbar, District Udaipur.
----Appellants
Versus
State of Rajasthan
----Respondent
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Chakrawarti Singh Rathore
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Rajesh Bhati, AGA
Mr. Ravindra Singh, AGA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FARJAND ALI
Order
Judgment reserved on : 04/12/2025
Judgment pronounced on : 16/12/2025
1. The instant appeal under Section 374 (2) of the CrPC has
been preferred assailing the judmgnet dated 05.08.1996 passed
by the learned Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act
Cases, Udaipur in Special Sessions Cae No.49/1993, whereby the
appellants have been convicted and sentenced as under :-
Offence Sentence Fine Sentence for
for of imposed default in
which convicted imprisonment payment of
awarded fine
Section 147 IPC 6 months' SI - -
Section 447 IPC 1 month's SI - -
Section 427/149 6 months' SI Rs.500/- 2 months' S.I.
IPC
Section 3(1)(5) of 6 months' SI Rs.500/- 2 months' S.I.
the SC/ST Act
(Uploaded on 20/12/2025 at 04:19:25 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:52782] (2 of 8) [CRLA-413/1996]
2. The prosecution case is that the complainant, Shankar Salvi,
a resident of village Gudel, was allotted a residential plot
measuring 25 feet × 25 feet by the Gram Panchayat under a
welfare scheme and was in possession thereof. It was alleged that
when the complainant commenced construction of a residential
house over the said plot, the accused persons, who were residents
of the same village, objected to such construction. It was further
alleged that on 27.08.1993 at about 8:00 p.m., the accused
persons, forming an unlawful assembly, trespassed upon the
complainant's plot and demolished the construction raised
thereon, causing loss estimated at about ₹15,000/-. On the basis
of a complaint submitted by the complainant, the matter was
referred for investigation under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., whereafter
a charge-sheet was filed against the accused persons for offences
under Sections 147, 447, 427 read with Section 149 of the Indian
Penal Code and under the provisions of the Scheduled Castes and
Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. The case being
triable by the Special Court, it was committed accordingly. During
trial, the prosecution examined the complainant, his family
members, neighbouring witnesses, the then Sarpanch and the
Investigating Officer. The defence also led evidence and disputed
the prosecution version, including the complainant's possession
over the disputed land. Upon appreciation of the evidence on
record, the learned Special Judge acquitted the accused of the
charge relating to caste-based intentional insult but convicted
them for the offences under Sections 147, 447, 427 read with
(Uploaded on 20/12/2025 at 04:19:25 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:52782] (3 of 8) [CRLA-413/1996]
Section 149 IPC and under the relevant provision of the SC/ST
Act, and sentenced them as above. Aggrieved thereby, the
accused have preferred the present appeal.
3. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the
appellants do not assail the conviction recorded by the learned
trial court and confine their submissions only to the question of
sentence.
4. On the point of sentence, it is submitted that the present
case relates to an incident of the year 1993, and for more than
three decades the appellants have undergone the ordeal of
criminal proceedings. The prolonged pendency of the matter has
itself operated as a substantial punishment and deterrent. The
dispute had its genesis in a civil litigation relating to land, which
was pending between the parties, both of whom belong to the
same village, and the incident arose out of a localised property
dispute rather than any hardened criminal intent. Learned counsel
submits that the age of the appellants at the time of the incident,
coupled with their present advanced age, is a significant mitigating
circumstance. Some of the appellants were of immature age at the
relevant time, while the remaining appellants have now attained
advanced age and are suffering from various ailments relating to
old age.
5. It is further submitted that this was the first and only
criminal case against the appellants. There is no material on
record to suggest any previous or subsequent criminal
involvement, and no other criminal case has ever been reported
(Uploaded on 20/12/2025 at 04:19:25 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:52782] (4 of 8) [CRLA-413/1996]
against them. Throughout the investigation, trial and pendency of
the appeal, the appellants remained on bail, scrupulously complied
with all conditions, and never misused the liberty granted to them.
Learned counsel submits that the appellants have since reformed,
are leading peaceful lives as responsible members of society, and
are supporting their families. At this distant point of time, sending
the appellants back to incarceration would serve no useful or
reformative purpose, and would instead cause undue hardship to
innocent family members who are dependent upon them. It is also
pointed out that the appellants have already undergone a few
days of incarceration during the course of investigation and trial,
which may be taken into account while determining the
appropriate sentence.
6. In view of the totality of circumstances, including the
antiquity of the case, the civil nature of the underlying dispute,
the age and present circumstances of the appellants, absence of
criminal antecedents, long passage of time, and demonstrated
reformation, learned counsel prays that this court may take a
lenient view on the question of sentence and suitably reduce the
substantive sentence of imprisonment, while maintaining the
conviction.
7. Learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the State supports
the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the
learned trial court. It is submitted that the findings of guilt
recorded against the appellants are based on a proper and careful
appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence on record. It is
(Uploaded on 20/12/2025 at 04:19:25 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:52782] (5 of 8) [CRLA-413/1996]
contended that the prosecution evidence clearly establishes that
the appellants, acting as members of an unlawful assembly,
criminally trespassed upon the complainant's lawfully allotted and
possessed land and caused damage to the construction raised
thereon. The testimony of the material witnesses, duly
corroborated by documentary evidence and the site inspection,
inspires confidence and justifies the conviction under Sections
147, 447 and 427 read with Section 149 IPC. Learned Public
Prosecutor submits that no perversity, illegality or material
infirmity has been pointed out in the impugned judgment
warranting interference by this Court. The sentence awarded is
within the statutory framework and does not call for interference
in appellate jurisdiction. Accordingly, it is prayed that the appeal
be dismissed.
8. Having considered the rival submissions and upon a re-
appreciation of the evidence available on record, this court finds
no perversity or illegality in the findings of guilt recorded by the
learned trial court. The prosecution has been able to establish,
beyond reasonable doubt, that on the date of the incident the
complainant was in settled possession of the allotted land and that
the appellants, forming an unlawful assembly, trespassed upon the
said land and demolished the construction raised thereon. The
testimonies of the complainant, his family members and the
independent witness, duly corroborated by the site inspection and
documentary evidence, clearly prove the commission of offences
under Sections 147, 447 and 427 read with Section 149 IPC. The
learned trial court has carefully analysed the evidence and has
(Uploaded on 20/12/2025 at 04:19:25 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:52782] (6 of 8) [CRLA-413/1996]
recorded cogent reasons for holding the appellants guilty of the
said offences. No material contradiction or infirmity has been
pointed out which may warrant interference with the conviction.
Accordingly, the conviction of the appellants for the aforesaid
offences is hereby affirmed.
9. While affirming the conviction of the appellants, this Court
proceeds to examine the question of sentence. The incident in
question pertains to the year 1993, and the appellants have faced
the rigours of criminal proceedings for an inordinately long period.
The prolonged pendency of the case and the anxiety undergone by
the appellants during this time cannot be lost sight of. The
material on record indicates that the genesis of the occurrence lay
in a civil dispute relating to land between the parties, who belong
to the same village. The act complained of, though unlawful and
deserving of condemnation, appears to have arisen out of a
localised property dispute rather than from any entrenched
criminal tendency.
10. Another relevant mitigating circumstance is the age of the
appellants at the time of the incident as well as their present age.
At the time of occurrence, two of the appellants, namely Nirbhay
Singh and Laxman Singh, were of immature age, being about 19
and 23 years respectively, while Madhu Singh was about 25 years
of age. The remaining appellants were middle-aged at that time.
With the passage of more than 32 years, the appellants are now
of advanced age, with Kansingh and Roop Singh being around 91-
92 years, Nahar Singh about 81 years, Madhu Singh around 64
(Uploaded on 20/12/2025 at 04:19:25 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:52782] (7 of 8) [CRLA-413/1996]
years, Laxman Singh about 62 years, and Nirbhay Singh around
58 years. This was the first and solitary criminal case against the
appellants, and there is no material on record to suggest any
subsequent criminal involvement.
11. It is also not in dispute that the appellants remained on bail
throughout the trial and during the pendency of the appeal, did
not misuse the liberty granted to them, and have undergone a few
days of incarceration during the course of investigation and trial.
Over the years, the appellants appear to have settled into society
as law-abiding citizens. At this distant point of time, directing
them to undergo further imprisonment would serve no useful
purpose and would instead cause undue hardship to their families.
12. At the same time, this Court cannot condone the conduct of
the appellants in taking the law into their own hands and
demolishing the construction raised by the complainant. Such
conduct deserves clear judicial censure, and disputes relating to
property must be resolved strictly in accordance with law.
13. In view of the aforesaid mitigating circumstances, and being
guided by the principles laid down by the 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 is of the considered opinion that the ends
of justice would be met by reducing the substantive sentence of
imprisonment.
14. Accordingly, while maintaining the conviction as recorded by
the trial court vide the judgment impugned, the substantive
(Uploaded on 20/12/2025 at 04:19:25 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:52782] (8 of 8) [CRLA-413/1996]
sentence awarded to the appellants is reduced to the period
already undergone. The appellants are admonished for their
unlawful conduct and are cautioned to maintain peace and abide
by the rule of law in future.
15. The appeal is partly allowed to the extent indicated above.
16. All pending applications are disposed of.
17. The record be returned to the trial court.
(FARJAND ALI),J
Pramod/-
(Uploaded on 20/12/2025 at 04:19:25 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
