Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Ramkaran vs State (2025:Rj-Jd:2015) on 13 January, 2025
Author: Manoj Kumar Garg
Bench: Manoj Kumar Garg
[2025:RJ-JD:2015]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 23/1998
Ramkaran S/o Shri Nanu Ram, B/c Banwri, R/o 19 NP Teh.
Raisinghnagar, District Sriganganagar.
----Appellant
Versus
State of Rajasthan
----Respondent
For Appellant(s) : Mr. NL Joshi
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Narendra Gehlot, PP with
Mr. OP Choudhary
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR GARG
Order
13/01/2025
Instant criminal appeal has been filed by the appellant under
Section 374(2) Cr.P.C. against the judgment dated 20.12.1997
passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Raisinghnagar,
Sriganganagar in Session Case No.5/1993 by which the learned
Judge convicted and sentenced the appellant as under :
Offence Sentence Fine & default sentence
Sec. 333 IPC 2 years RI Rs.500/- & in default of payment,
undergo 1 month SI
Sec. 332 IPC 1 year RI --
Sec. 353 IPC 6 months RI --
All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently.
Brief facts of the case are that the complainant Purna Nand
Sahoo, Field-man, Central State Farm, Jetsar moved an
application to SHO, PS Raisinghnagar to the effect that on
31.07.1989, when he was on duty, accused-appellant came and
[2025:RJ-JD:2015] (2 of 3) [CRLA-23/1998]
assaulted him with a stick. On the said report, Police registered a
case against the appellant and started investigation.
On completion of investigation, the police filed challan
against the accused appellant before the trial court. Thereafter,
the charges of the case were framed against the appellant, who
denied the same and claimed trial.
During the course of trial, the prosecution examined nine
witnesses. Thereafter, statement of the appellant under section
313 Cr.P.C was recorded.
Upon conclusion of the trial, the learned trial court vide
impugned judgment dated 20.12.1997 convicted the appellant for
offence under Sections 333, 332, 353 IPC and sentenced him as
mentioned above.
At the threshold, counsel for the appellant does not
challenge the finding of conviction but it is submitted that the
occurrence relates back to year 1989 and the appellant had
remained in jail for two days. No other case has been reported
against him. He hails from a very poor family and belongs to the
weaker section of the society. He has been facing trial since the year
1989 and he has languished in jail for some time, therefore, a lenient
view may be taken in reducing his sentence.
On the other hand, the learned Public Prosecutor opposed
the submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellant.
The learned PP submitted that there is neither any occasion to
interfere with the sentence awarded to the accused appellant nor
any compassion or sympathy is called for in the said case.
[2025:RJ-JD:2015] (3 of 3) [CRLA-23/1998]
I have perused the evidence of the prosecution as well as
defence and the judgment passed by the trial court regarding
conviction of the accused-appellant.
It is not disputed that the occurrence has taken place in the
year 1989 and the accused-appellant has so far undergone a
period of two days incarceration, out of total sentence of two
years R.I., and so also suffered the mental agony and trauma of
protracted trial. Thus, looking to the over-all circumstances and
the fact that the accused-appellant has remained behind the bars
for considerable time, it will be just and proper if the sentence
awarded by the trial court for offence under Sections 333, 332,
353 IPC is reduced to the period already undergone by him.
Accordingly, the criminal appeal is partly allowed. While
maintaining the appellant's conviction for offence under Sections
333, 332, 353 IPC, the sentence awarded to him for aforesaid
offences is hereby reduced to the period already undergone. The
fine amount is also waived. The appellant is on bail. He need not
surrender. His bail bonds stand discharged.
The record of the courts below be sent back forthwith.
(MANOJ KUMAR GARG),J
146-MS/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
