Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Gurudeo And Anr vs State (2025:Rj-Jd:22522) on 9 May, 2025
Author: Manoj Kumar Garg
Bench: Manoj Kumar Garg
[2025:RJ-JD:22522]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 150/1995
1. Gurudeo Singh S/o Aala Singh R/o Chak 2 KND, Tehsil
Gharsana, District Sirganganagar.
2. Amar Singh S/o Veer Singh R/o Chak 2 KND, Tehsil
Gharsana, District Sirganganagar.
----Appellant
Versus
State of Rajasthan
----Respondent
For Appellant(s) : Dr. RDSS Kharlia
Ms. Kirti Bodha
For Respondent(s) : Mr. K.S. Kumpawat, assistant to
Mr. Deepak Chowdhary, AAG
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR GARG
Judgment
09/05/2025
1. Instant criminal appeal has been filed by the appellants
against the judgment dated 25.03.1995 passed by learned Special
Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act Cases, District
Sriganganagar in Criminal Case No.170/1994 by which the learned
Judge convicted and sentenced the appellant as under :
Offence Sentence Fine Sentence in
default of fine
Section 341 IPC 1 month's S.I. - -
Section 354 IPC 6 months' R.I. Rs.500/- 15 days' S.I.
R/w Section 3(1)
(XI) of SC/ST Act
2. Both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently and the
period spent in judicial custody shall be adjusted in the original
imprisonment.
[2025:RJ-JD:22522] (2 of 4) [CRLA-150/1995]
3. Brief facts of the case are that on 03.04.1992, complainant
Veerpal Kaur submitted an oral report at Police Station Rawla
alleging that today at about 11 AM she was going towards pond
for fetching water to the cattle. On her way to pond, the accused
Devi Singh & Amar Singh blocked her way, Amar Singh held her
hand and made dirty gestures thereafter, she freed her hand and
went to her sister Malkiyat Kaur's home. On this report, Police
registered a case against the accused appellants and started
investigation.
4. On completion of investigation, police filed challan against
the accused-appellants. Thereafter, the trial court framed charges
against the accused-appellants for offence under Sections 341 &
354 read with Section 3(1)(XI) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities)
Act, who pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
5. During the course of trial, the prosecution examined as many
as 6 witnesses in support of its case and also exhibited some
documents. Thereafter, statement of the accused-appellants were
recorded under section 313 Cr.P.C. In defence, one witness was
examined.
6. Upon conclusion of the trial, the learned trial court vide
impugned judgment dated 25.03.1995 convicted and sentenced
the appellants for the offence as aforesaid. Hence, this criminal
appeal.
7. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that according to
the perusal of FIR (Ex.P.1), no allegation has been made out
against the appellants for using abusive language with the
complainant. The complainant Veerpal Kaur (PW.1) has admitted
in her cross-examination that no abusive language has been used
[2025:RJ-JD:22522] (3 of 4) [CRLA-150/1995]
by the appellant and the usage of same is not even mentioned in
the FIR (Ex.P.1). Counsel submits that Gurmeet Kaur @ Malkiyat
Kaur (PW.2) has been declared hostile and Jal Kaur (PW.3) &
Kapur Singh (PW.5) have also not mentioned about usage of
abusive language in their statement, therefore, the offence under
Section 3(1)(XI) of SC/ST Act is not been made out against the
appellants. At the threshold, learned counsel for the accused-
appellant submits that he does not challenge the finding of
conviction but since the occurrence is related to the year 1995 and
the accused appellants have so far suffered a sentence of about
27 days, out of total sentence of six months' R.I., therefore, it is
prayed that the sentence awarded to the appellants for the
aforesaid offence may be reduced to the period already undergone
by them.
8. On the other hand, the learned Public Prosecutor opposed
the submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellants.
The learned Public Prosecutor submitted that there is neither any
occasion to interfere with the sentence awarded to the accused
appellants nor any compassion or sympathy is called for in the
said case.
9. 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-appellants.
10. According to FIR, no usage of abusive language by the
accused-appellants with the complainant has been mentioned. The
complainant (PW.1) in her cross-examination also mentioned that
no abusive language has been used by the accused-appellants and
other witnesses i.e., PW.2, PW.3 & PW.5 also did not mention the
[2025:RJ-JD:22522] (4 of 4) [CRLA-150/1995]
use of abusive language in their statement. In these
circumstances, offence under Section 3(1)(XI) of SC/ST Act is not
made out against the accused-appellant and he is hereby
acquitted from the offence under Section 3(1)(XI) of SC/ST Act.
11. Undisputedly, the occurrence relates back to year 1995 and,
the appellants have so far undergone a period of 27 days
incarceration, out of total sentence of six months' R.I., and has
also suffered the mental agony and trauma of protracted trial.
Thus, looking to the over-all circumstances and the fact that the
appellants have remained behind the bars for a considerable time,
it will be just and proper if the sentence awarded by the trial court
for offence under Sections 341 & 354 of IPC is reduced to the
period already undergone by the appellant.
12. Accordingly, the appeal is partly allowed. While maintaining
the appellants' conviction for offence under Sections 341 & 354 of
IPC, the sentence awarded to him for the said offence is hereby
reduced to the period already undergone. The fine imposed by the
trial court has already been deposited by the appellants. The
appellants are on bail. They need not surrender. Their bail bonds
are discharged.
13. Pending applications, if any, stands decided.
14. Record, if received, be sent back forthwith.
(MANOJ KUMAR GARG),J
2-Rashi/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
