Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Shoraam vs State (2025:Rj-Jd:51222) on 26 November, 2025
Author: Bhuwan Goyal
Bench: Bhuwan Goyal
[2025:RJ-JD:51222]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 153/1996
Shoraam S/o Dhana Jat, R/o Nadakhada, P. S. Bhadsoda, District
Chittorgarh.
----Appellant
Versus
State of Rajasthan
----Respondent
For Appellant(s) : Mr. N. K. Rastogi
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Rajesh Bhati, AGA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BHUWAN GOYAL
Judgment
26/11/2025
1. The present appeal has been filed by the accused-appellant
Shoraam against the judgment and order dated 03.02.1996
passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Nimbahera, in Sessions Case
No.13/1995 whereby, accused-appellant has been convicted for
the offence under Section 308 IPC & sentenced to undergo two
years' rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs.1000/-; in default of
payment of fine to further undergo 3 months' simple
imprisonment and for the offence under Section 323 IPC
sentenced to undergo three months' simple imprisonment.
2. Facts of the case in short are that the complainant - Kishan
Lal Jat lodged an FIR before Police Station, Badsoda on
07.11.1994 stating therein that on 06.11.1994 at about 8 O' clock
in the evening his brother-Shoraam (present appellant) came with
his wife and son and started beating with him. It is also stated
that the accused-appellant was having ''Kulhari' with him and
(Uploaded on 28/11/2025 at 12:55:57 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:51222] (2 of 5) [CRLA-153/1996]
inflicted injury on his head. On that basis, F.I.R. No.243/1994 was
registered for the offences under Sections 452, 307/34 & 323 I.P.C
and investigation was commenced. After investigation, police
submitted charge-sheet against the appellant before the
concerned trial Court. The trial Court framed charges against the
accused-appellant for the offences under Sections 307 & 323 I.P.C.
The accused denied the charges and claimed for trial, who
committed it to ADJ, Nimbaheda. The prosecution produced
witnesses. The statement of accused-appellant was recorded
under Section 313 Cr.P.C. After conclusion of trial, the trial Court
passed judgment and order dated 03.02.1996 acquitting the
accused-appellant for the offence under Section 307 I.P.C. but
convicted him for the offences under Sections 308 & 323 of I.P.C
and sentenced him as indicated above. Aggrieved by judgment of
conviction and sentence dated 03.02.1996, the accused-appellant
has preferred this criminal appeal.
4. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
5. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that no appeal has
been filed by the State against the acquittal of the accused
appellant for the offence under Section 307 IPC and instant appeal
has been filed by the accused-appellant against his conviction and
sentence for the offences under Sections 308 & 323 IPC. He
further submits that he does not wish to press instant criminal
appeal in respect of judgment of conviction passed by the trial
Court and prefers to make submissions on the point of sentence
only.
6. Learned counsel for the appellant also submits that the
complainant has submitted an application before the concerned
(Uploaded on 28/11/2025 at 12:55:57 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:51222] (3 of 5) [CRLA-153/1996]
police station explicitly stating therein that he does not want to
undergo an x-ray, as his head injury is recovered now, further he
has been declared hostile and in his statement, he himself stated
that he is unaware of the identity of the individual, responsible for
his forehead injury.
7. Learned counsel for the appellant further submits that the
incident in the present case took place way back in the year 1994
i.e. more than 32 years ago; appellant was 35 years of age at the
time of incident and now he is around 77 years old and facing
agony of trial since last more than 32 years; appellant belongs to
poor strata of society and remained incarcerated for quite some
time and there is no previous conviction recorded against him,
therefore, he prays that ends of justice would meet if a lenient
view is taken in the matter and sentence of imprisonment
awarded to the appellant is reduced to the period already
undergone by him.
8. Learned counsel for the accused-appellant has relied upon
the judgments passed by this Court in the case of Onkar Nath &
Ors Vs. State of Rajasthan : SB Criminal Appeal
No.388/2005 decided on 30.07.2025 and Nand Singh Vs.
State of Rajasthan reported in 2025 (2) Cr.L.R. (Raj.) 716.
8. Per contra, learned Government Advocate while opposing the
appeal, submits that looking to the overall facts and circumstances
of the case and the well reasoned speaking order passed by the
trial court, sentence awarded by the trial Court cannot be said to
be disproportionate.
9. I have considered the arguments advanced at the Bar and
have gone through impugned judgment and record of the case.
(Uploaded on 28/11/2025 at 12:55:57 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:51222] (4 of 5) [CRLA-153/1996]
10. Since the appeal against conviction of accused-appellant
Shoraam is not pressed and after perusing the record, nothing is
noticed which requires interference in the finding of guilt reached
by the trial Court, this Court does not wish to interfere in the
judgment of conviction of accused-appellant Shoraam.
Accordingly, the judgment of conviction passed by the trial court
against accused-appellant- Shoraam is maintained.
11. As far as question of sentence is concerned, after perusing
judgment and order impugned and considering the submissions of
learned counsel for the parties; appellant was incarcerated for
sometime during investigation & trial and is facing the trial since
last more than 32 years and no evidence regarding previous
conviction of the appellant is produced on record, this Court is of
the opinion that no fruitful purpose would be served by sending
him to jail now.
12. This Court is conscious of the judgments rendered in Alister
Anthony Pareira Vs. State of Maharashtra : (2012) 2 SCC
648 and Haripada Das Vs. State of W.B. : (1998) 9 SCC 678,
wherein, the Hon'ble Apex Court observed as under:
Alister Anthony Pareira (Supra)
"There is no straitjacket formula for sentencing an
accused on proof of crime. The courts have evolved
certain principles: twin objective of the sentencing
policy is deterrence and correction. What sentence
would meet the ends of justice depends on the facts
and circumstances of each case and the court must
keep in mind the gravity of the crime, motive for the
crime, nature of the offence and all other attendant
circumstances."
(Uploaded on 28/11/2025 at 12:55:57 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:51222] (5 of 5) [CRLA-153/1996]
Haripada Das (Supra)
"...considering the fact that the respondent had already
undergone detention for some period and the case is
pending for a pretty long time for which he had
suffered both financial hardship and mental agony and
also considering the fact that he had been released on
bail as far back as on 17-1-1986, we feel that the ends
of justice will be met in the facts of the case if the
sentence is reduced to the period already undergone..."
13. Consequently, the judgment of conviction dated 03.02.1996
passed by the learned trial Court against the appellant is affirmed
but the quantum of sentence awarded by the trial Court is
modified and the sentence awarded to the accused-appellant by
the trial Court for the offence under Sections 308 & 323 IPC is
reduced to the period already undergone by him, which would be
sufficient and justifiable to serve the interest of justice. The
appellant is on bail. He need not to surrender. His bail bonds are
discharged.
14. The appeal stands disposed of accordingly.
15. A copy of this order along with record be sent to the trial
court forthwith
(BHUWAN GOYAL),J
4-A.Arora/-
(Uploaded on 28/11/2025 at 12:55:57 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
