Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Kishan Lal @ Pappu vs State (2025:Rj-Jd:51172) on 26 November, 2025
Author: Bhuwan Goyal
Bench: Bhuwan Goyal
[2025:RJ-JD:51172]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 32/1996
Kishan Lal @ Pappu S/o Punam Chand, aged 22 years, R/o Near
Royal Market Didwana, District Nagaur.
----Appellant
Versus
State of Rajasthan
----Respondent
For Appellant(s) : Ms. Anjali Kaushik for Mr. S. K. Verma
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
Kishan Lal @ Pappu against the judgment and order dated
23.12.1995 passed by Sessions Judge, Nagaur Camp at Didwana,
in Sessions Case No.09/1995 whereby, accused-appellant has
been convicted for the offence under Section 325 IPC & sentenced
to undergo two years rigorous imprisonment with fine of
Rs.2000/-; in default of payment of fine to further undergo 3
months' simple imprisonment and for the offence under Section
323 IPC & sentenced to undergo six months' rigorous
imprisonment with fine of Rs.300/-; in default of payment of fine
to further undergo one month's simple imprisonment.
2. Facts of the case in short are that the complainant - Sunda
Ram submitted a written report at Police Station, Didwanan on
02.06.1995 stating therein that at about 11 O' clock in the
morning one Jetha Ram came and informed him that his brother
(Uploaded on 28/11/2025 at 12:55:18 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:51172] (2 of 5) [CRLA-32/1996]
Om Prakash has been beaten by Kishan Lal and he is admitted in
hospital and lying unconscious. On that basis, F.I.R. No.54/1995
was registered for the offence under sections 341 & 323 I.P.C and
later on Section 325 & 307 IPC were also added and investigation
was commenced. After investigation, police submitted charge-
sheet against the appellant for the offences under Sections 341,
323, 325 & 307 I.P.C before the Civil Judge (Jr. Division) &
Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Didwana, who committed it to
the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Nagaur Camp at Didwana.
The trial Court framed charges against the accused-appellant for
the offences under Sections 307, 323 & 325 I.P.C. The accused
denied the charges and claimed for trial. 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 23.12.1995
acquitting the accused-appellant for the offence under Section 307
I.P.C. but convicted him for the offences under Sections 325 & 323
of I.P.C and sentenced him as indicated above. Aggrieved by
judgment of conviction and sentence dated 23.12.1995, 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 323 & 325 IPC. He
further submits that he does not wish to press instant criminal
appeal in respect of judgment of conviction passed by the trial
(Uploaded on 28/11/2025 at 12:55:18 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:51172] (3 of 5) [CRLA-32/1996]
Court and prefers to make submissions on the point of sentence
only.
6. Learned counsel for the appellant also submits that incident
in the present case took place way back in the year 1995 i.e. more
than 31 years ago; appellant was 21 years of age at the time of
incident and now he is around 52 years old and facing agony of
trial since last more than 31 years; appellant belongs to poor
strata of society and remained in police and judicial custody for a
period of more than three weeks and there is no previous
conviction recorded against the appellant, 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.
7. Learned counsel for the accused-appellant has relied upon
the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in 'Karthick
& Ors. Vs. The State represented by Inspector of Police,
Kancheepuram District, Tamil Nadu' in Criminal Appeal No.
543/2020 arising out of SLP (Criminal) No. 2040 of 2020, decided
on 26.08.2020, in the case of 'State of Uttar Pradesh vs.
Tribhuwan and Ors.' reported in AIR 2017 SC 5249 and the
judgment passed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the
case of 'Jagdish and Ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan' reported in
1989 (2) WLN 583.
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.
(Uploaded on 28/11/2025 at 12:55:18 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:51172] (4 of 5) [CRLA-32/1996]
9. I have considered the arguments advanced at the Bar and
have gone through impugned judgment and record of the case.
10. Since the appeal against conviction of accused-appellant
Kishan Lal @ Pappu 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
Kishan Lal @ Pappu. Accordingly, the judgment of conviction
passed by the trial court against accused-appellant- Kishan Lal @
Pappu 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 31 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
(Uploaded on 28/11/2025 at 12:55:18 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:51172] (5 of 5) [CRLA-32/1996]
crime, nature of the offence and all other attendant
circumstances."
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 23.12.1995
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 325 & 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
3-A.Arora/-
(Uploaded on 28/11/2025 at 12:55:18 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
