Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Kishna Ram And Ors vs State (2025:Rj-Jd:22476) on 9 May, 2025
Author: Manoj Kumar Garg
Bench: Manoj Kumar Garg
[2025:RJ-JD:22476]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 85/1995
1. Kishna Ram S/o Madu Ram, B/c Harijan Chamar, R/o Seikhpus,
District Hissar.
2. Sagar S/o Shri Sheolal, B/c Khati, R/o Chiriya Gandhi, District
Hanumangarh.
3. Budhram S/o Chaina Ram, B/c Kumhar, R/o Chiriya Gandhi,
District Hanumangarh.
----Appellants
Versus
State of Rajathan
----Respondent
For Appellant(s) : Ms. Urvashi Kalla
Mr. Jayant Jain
For Respondent(s) : Mr. KS Kumpawat, PP
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR GARG
Judgment
09/05/2025
Instant criminal appeal has been filed by the appellants under
Section 374(2) Cr.P.C. against the judgment dated 22.02.1995
passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Nohar in Sessions Case
No.62/1994 by which the learned Judge convicted the appellants for
offence under Sections 307/34 and sentenced them to undergo four
years rigorous imprisonment along with fine of Rs.1,000/- and in
default of payment of fine, to further undergo three months SI.
Brief facts of the case are that on 12.09.1992,
complainant/injured Ishwar Ram gave a parcha bayan to the police
at Government Hospital, Bhadra to the effect that when he was at his
agriculture field, the accused-appellant came and assaulted him with
lathi. On the said parcha bayan, Police registered a case and started
investigation.
On completion of investigation, the police filed challan against
the accused appellants before the trial court. Thereafter, the charges
[2025:RJ-JD:22476] (2 of 3) [CRLA-85/1995]
of the case were framed against the appellants, who denied the
same and claimed trial.
During the course of trial, the prosecution examined four
witnesses and exhibited certain documents in support of its case.
Thereafter, statements of appellants under section 313 Cr.P.C were
recorded.
Upon conclusion of the trial, the learned trial court vide
impugned judgment dated 22.02.1995 convicted the present
appellants for offence under Section 307/34 IPC and sentenced them
as mentioned above.
Learned Public Prosecutor has submitted a report dated
05.03.2025, received from the SHO, PS Bhirani. According to the
said report, appellant No.1 Kishna Ram and appellant No.3 Budhram
had passed away. Copies of their death certificate are also annexed
with the said report. The report dated 05.03.2025 is hereby taken on
record.
In view of above, the present criminal appeal qua appellant
No.1 Kishna Ram and appellant No.3 Budhram is hereby dismissed
as abated.
So far as appellant No.2 Sagar is concerned, at the threshold,
counsel does not challenge the finding of conviction but it is
submitted that the occurrence relates back to year 1992 and the
appellant No.2 has so far suffered a sentence of about two months,
out of total sentence of four years R.I. In such circumstances, it is
prayed that the substantive sentence awarded to the accused-
appellant No.2 for the offence under Section 307/34 IPC may be
reduced to the period already undergone by him.
[2025:RJ-JD:22476] (3 of 3) [CRLA-85/1995]
On the other hand, the learned Public Prosecutor opposed the
submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellants. The
learned PP 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.
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.
It is not disputed that the occurrence has taken place in the
year 1992 and the accused-appellant No.2 has so far undergone a
period of about two months incarceration, out of total sentence of
four 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 No.2 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 Section 307/34 IPC is
reduced to the period already undergone by him.
Accordingly, the appeal is partly allowed. While maintaining the
conviction of the appellant No.2 for offence under Section 307/34,
the sentence awarded to him is reduced to the period already
undergone. The fine imposed by the trial court is hereby waived. The
appellant is on bail. He need not surrender. His bail bonds are
discharged.
The record of the trial court be sent back forthwith.
(MANOJ KUMAR GARG),J
1-MS/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
