Jeet Ram vs State (2025:Rj-Jd:11566)
2025 Latest Caselaw 7827 Raj

Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur

Jeet Ram vs State (2025:Rj-Jd:11566) on 24 February, 2025

Author: Farjand Ali

Bench: Farjand Ali

[2025:RJ-JD:11566]

      HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
                       JODHPUR
                     S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 215/1996

 Jeet Ram S/o Sh. Sohan Lal by caste Bishnoi Resident fo 57
 L.N.P. Tehsil Padampur Distt. Sri Ganganagar.
                                                                      ----Appellant
                                       Versus
 State of Rajasthan
                                                                    ----Respondent


 For Appellant(s)            :     Mr. R.S. Gill
 For Respondent(s)           :     Mr. Surendra Bishnoi, AGA


                HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FARJAND ALI

Order

24/02/2025

1. The instant criminal appeal has been preferred on behalf of

the petitioner against the order of judgment passed by

learned Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities Act

Cases), Sriganganagar wherein the appellant was tried for

offence under Section 447 & 354 of IPC and Section 3(1)(10)

of the SC/ST Act. Post the recourse trial he was convicted for

offence under Section 447 & 354 of IPC read with the penal

provision of Section 3 of SC/ST Act. He was sentenced to

suffer three months for Section 447 and six months for the

rest of the offence with fine of Rs.500/- with default clause.

2. At the outset, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that

he does not wish to continue the appeal to the extent of

finding of guilt but seeks benevolence of this Court for taking

leniency in punishment.

3. For the purpose of satisfaction I have also gone through the

record of the case and gone through the Statement of PW-1

[2025:RJ-JD:11566] (2 of 2) [CRLA-215/1996]

Urma, PW-2 Sahebram, PW-3 Balram and then feels that the

finding of guilt is based on reliable material, and therefore, a

judgment of conviction is uphold. The appeal is dismissed to

the extent of challenge to the conviction.

4. As far as the question of sentence is concerned, this Court

has observed that the incident took place in the year 1993.

There was some exaggeration also. The parties were close

neighbours. There was some other dispute also between

them. The appellant was of thirty years at that time. Now he

has become old. The dispute between the parties has also

cooled down. Sending back an old man to jail after thirty two

years would be detrimental to his interest and it may

reignite the buried dispute between the parties. The

appellant is a very poor person belongs to a weaker section

of the society and a resident of far West desert of the

Rajasthan. He remained in jail during investigation and post

his conviction for few days. In my view, the period

undergone by him till date would meet the ends of justice.

5. In view of the above, the instant appeal is allowed in part.

The judgment of conviction passed by the learned trial Court

is maintained. The order of sentence is modified and the

sentence is reduced to the period he has already undergone.

He need not to surrender back to the Court. His bail bonds

are canceled.

6. Record be sent back.

(FARJAND ALI),J 93-Samvedana/-

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)