Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Gopi Ram And Anr vs State (2025:Rj-Jd:10992) on 25 February, 2025
Author: Farjand Ali
Bench: Farjand Ali
[2025:RJ-JD:10992]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 560/1994
1. Gopi Ram son of Shri Chandu Ram by caste Jat resident of
Rasara Jakhran, Tehsil Suratgarh, District Sri Ganganagar.
2. Krishan Lal son of Shri Sultan Ram by caste Jat resident of
Sidhuwala Tehsil Suratgarh District Sri Ganganagar.
----Appellant
Versus
State of Rajasthan
----Respondent
For Appellant(s) : Mr. R.S. Gill
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vikram Rajpurohit, Dy.G.A. with
Mr. R.S. Bhati
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FARJAND ALI
Order
25/02/2025
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 Court, Sriganganagar wherein the appellants
were tried for committing an offence under Section 323 of IPC and
Section 3(1)(10) of the SC/ST Act.
2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
material available on record.
3. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that on 18.12.1992,
the complainant PW-1 Dedram submitted a report Ex.P2 alleging
inter-alia that on the previous night a dispute had been erupted in
between him and the appellants and after exchange of hot
altercation between them, they scuffled. Allegation of hurning
abusive language indicating the caste of the complainant are also
[2025:RJ-JD:10992] (2 of 3) [CRLA-560/1994]
made. It was alleged that he was beaten up by the appellants
based on the aforesaid report, a case was registered for offence
under Sections 447, 323 & 504 of the IPC along with Section 3(1)
(10) of the SC/ST Act. The matter was thoroughly investigated
and whereafter the appellants were charge-sheeted for offence
under Sections 447, 323 & 504 of IPC and Section 3(1)(10) of the
SC/ST Act. The matter was committed to the learned trial Court.
The learned trial Court framed charges under Section 323 of the
IPC and Section 3(1)(10) of the SC/ST Act. Since the other
offences were not found proved. As many as nine witnesses were
produced by the prosecution to substantiate the charge and
whereafter an explanation was sought under Section 313 of the
Cr.P.C. from the accused wherein he abjured from the allegation
and claimed innocence. DW-1 Jagdish was examined for defence.
The point of determination before the learned trial Court that
whether the complainant Hetram and Dedram were beaten up by
the appellants so also whether they were humiliated and
intimidated of being a member of SC/ST in a public view by the
accused.
4. At this juncture, Shri R.S. Gill, learned counsel for the
appellants would contend that he would not press the appeal on
the point of finding of guilt and judgment of conviction but at the
same time implores for taking lenient view on the point of
sentence.
5. For the purpose of satisfaction, I have also gone through the
record of the case and observed that PW-1 Dedram, PW-2 Hetram
and PW-4 Ramkumar, in an unambiguous and in an unequivocal
term have stated above their humiliation and intimidation by the
[2025:RJ-JD:10992] (3 of 3) [CRLA-560/1994]
appellants and it was done on a public view. The allegations of
causing injuries though levelled but the same is not getting
corroboration from medical side since when examined the medical
officer did not notice any ostensible injury. In view of the above,
the judgment of conviction is upheld.
6. As far as the question of sentence is concerned, suffice it
would be to say that the appellants are residents of far West of
the State of Rajasthan and which is a remote village. They are not
literate persons. The incident occurred in a spur of moment
without there being any premeditation or pre-concert. It was a
very trivial issue. There were no inimical relationship or personal
grudge. Perhaps the appellants had clutched into excitement and
failed to resist or control themselves, however, an undue
advantage of their position was not taken which is very much
obvious from the medical opinion. The parties are the resident of
the same village. The incident occurred in the year 1992 and now
thirty three years have elapsed. They had to face agony of judicial
proceeding for long thirty three years. They have no criminal
antecedents and have also remain in jail for sometime.
7. In this view of the matter, the appeal is allowed to the extent
of quantum of sentence. Accordingly, the appeal is partly allowed.
The conviction is maintained and the sentence is reduced to the
period they have already undergone. They need not to surrender
back to the Court. Their bail bonds are cancelled.
8. Record be sent back.
(FARJAND ALI),J
11-Samvedana/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
