Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Hema Ram And Ors vs State (2025:Rj-Jd:44538) on 10 October, 2025
Author: Dinesh Mehta
Bench: Dinesh Mehta
[2025:RJ-JD:44538]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 12/1996
1. Hema Ram son of Amra Ram, resident of Village Vingrala
Tehsil Desuri, P.S. Rani, District Pali.
2. Moola Ram son of Lachha Ram, resident of Village Vingrala
Tehsil Desuri, P.S. Rani, District Pali.
3. Jabbar Singh son of Khim Singh, resident of Village Vingrala
Tehsil Desuri, P.S. Rani, District Pali.
4. Ratan Singh son of Khim Singh, resident of Village Vingrala
Tehsil Desuri, P.S. Rani, District Pali.
5. Amra Ram son of Nema Ram, resident of Village Vingrala
Tehsil Desuri, P.S. Rani, District Pali.
----Appellant
Versus
State of Rajasthan, Through Public Prosecutor
----Respondent
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Jhamak Nagda
For Respondent(s) : Mr. C.S. Ojha, PP
JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA
Judgment
10/10/2025
1. The present appeal has been filed by the appellants under
Section 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 against the
judgment and order dated 12.12.1995 passed by learned
Additional Sessions Judge, Bali in Sessions Case No.40/1987.
S.No. Offence Sentence Fine
1. 325/149 2 years' To pay a fine of Rs. 2000/-, in
IPC Rigorous default thereof to further
Imprisonment undergo 6 months' Simple
Imprisonment
(Uploaded on 10/10/2025 at 04:44:56 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:44538] (2 of 3) [CRLA-12/1996]
2. 323/149 9 months' -----------
IPC Simple
Imprisonment
3. 341 IPC 1 month -----------
Simple
Imprisonment
147 IPC 3 months' -----------
Simple
Imprisonment
2. Mr. Nagda, learned counsel for the appellants at the outset
submitted that the appeal qua appellant Nos. 2 and 5 has abated,
as they have passed away during the pendency of appeal and he
does not press the appeal qua the appellant Nos.3 and 4.
3. Learned counsel submitted that while convicting the accused
- persons, all other co-accused persons except appellant No.1
were given benefit of probation under Section 4 of the Probation
Act, 1958, however, such benefit was not extended to the
appellant No.1, simply because he had been convicted for the
similar offence under Sections 325, 33/149, 341 and 147 of the
Indian Penal Code.
4. Mr. Nagda, learned counsel for the appellants instead of
arguing the matter on merit submitted that the incident dates
back to 02.07.1987 and a period of more than 40 years has since
passed, prayed that sentence of the appellant No.1 be modified to
the extent of sentence that he has already undergone.
5. Learned Public Prosecutor did not seriously oppose
appellant's prayer.
6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
material available on record.
(Uploaded on 10/10/2025 at 04:44:56 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:44538] (3 of 3) [CRLA-12/1996]
7. Considering that a period of more than 40 years has passed
since the incident took place and that by now the appellant No.1
must be of about 75 years of age who has been convicted for
offence under Section 325/149 and 323/149, 341 and 147 of the
Indian Penal Code and the fact that he has suffered prolonged trial
and appeal, the present appeal stands disposed of by reducing the
appellant's sentence to the term already served i.e. 9 months
(31.08.1997 to 29.04.1998 and 12.12.1995 to 08.01.1996).
8. A fine of Rs.2,000/- which was imposed against him, in the
changed circumstances, however, increased to Rs.5,000/-, which
the appellant No.1 shall deposit in the trial Court. On deposition of
the additional fine of Rs.5,000/- within a period of 30 days from
today, the bail bonds furnished by the appellant No.1 shall stand
discharged. The amount of fine shall used in accordance with law.
9. The appeal qua the appellant Nos.2 and 5 stand abated and
the appeal qua the appellant Nos.3 and 4 dismissed as not
pressed.
(DINESH MEHTA),J
2-Anshul/-
(Uploaded on 10/10/2025 at 04:44:56 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
