Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Sohan Ram vs State (2025:Rj-Jd:44607) on 10 October, 2025
Author: Dinesh Mehta
Bench: Dinesh Mehta
[2025:RJ-JD:44607]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 526/1996
Sohan Ram S/o Bhoma Ram, R/o Jaswantabad, Tehsil Merta,
District Nagaur.
----Appellant
Versus
State of Rajasthan, Through Public Prosecutor.
----Respondent
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Ranjeet Singh Joshi
Mr. Abhijeet Joshi
Ms. Reema Gupta
Mr. Kapil Bissa
For Respondent(s) : Mr. CS Ojha, PP
JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA
Judgment
10/10/2025
1. The present appeal is directed against the judgment and
order dated 10.10.1996 passed by the learned Sessions Judge,
Merta (hereinafter referred to as the 'trial Court') in Sessions Case
No.28/94, whereby the appellant has been convicted under
sections 451 and 326 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter
referred to as the 'IPC').
2. The facts leading to the present appeal are that a written
report dated 08.04.1994 came to be submitted by the
complainant - Ram chandra inter alia alleging that when he was
sleeping on 07.04.1994 in his house, the appellant-accused person
came with an axe and gave a blow on his right hand and fled.
3. It was asserted by the complainant that he saw him from a
distance of 10 Paunda (about 25-30 ft.) from behind, when the
accused-appellant was running away.
4. Inviting Court's attention towards the testimony of injured
eye-witness - Ram Chandra (PW-1), Mr. Joshi, learned counsel for
(Uploaded on 10/10/2025 at 04:42:56 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:44607] (2 of 3) [CRLA-526/1996]
the appellant argued that the complainant has though stated that
he had seen the accused appellant from behind when he was
trying to run but in his cross-examination, he clearly stated that
due to infliction of axe, he became unconscious.
5. It was vehemently argued by Mr. Joshi that when the injured
complainant had become unconscious, how could he see and
recognize the appellant from a distance of about 30 ft. that too
when it was dark at 8 p.m. on the fateful day.
6. Learned counsel contended that regardless of this
contradiction in the testimony of the injured eye-witness, the trial
Court has convicted the appellant for the offence under section
326 of the IPC.
7. Learned Public Prosecutor on the other hand vehemently
opposed the arguments advanced by Mr. Joshi and argued that an
axe had been recovered from the appellant and prior animosity
had been proved with oral testimony. He submitted that the
complainant was lucky not to have suffered an injury on his vital
parts (neck and head), otherwise, the infliction would have been
fatal.
8. Learned Public Prosecutor argued that as a matter of fact,
the trial Court ought to have convicted the appellant under section
307 of the IPC instead of confining the conviction to one under
section 326 of the IPC.
9. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and on perusal
of the testimony of injured eye-witness Ram Chandra (PW-1) and
the injury report, this Court is of the view that so far as the
appellant's involvement in the incident is concerned, same is
proved.
(Uploaded on 10/10/2025 at 04:42:56 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:44607] (3 of 3) [CRLA-526/1996]
10. This Court is not much convinced with the argument of
learned Public Prosecutor that it should have been a conviction
under section 307 of the IPC, because there were no repeated
blows.
11. That apart, the trial Court has convicted the appellant under
sections 451 and 326 of IPC, hence, this Court would not like to
alter the conviction as claimed, moreso when a period of more
than 31 years has since passed.
12. Considering the injury report, the depth of the wound and
the fact that a period of about 31 years has passed since the
incident took place, this Court is of the view that though the
appeal does not call for any interference on merit but the sentence
awarded to the accused-appellant deserves to be modified to the
extent of the sentence already undergone.
13. Therefore, while rejecting the appeal on merit and upholding
the conviction, substantive sentence awarded to the accused-
appellant is altered to the extent of the sentence already
undergone. The sentence of the appellant stands reduced to the
period already undergone subject to the payment of a fine of
Rs.10,000/-, which he shall have to deposit within a period of four
weeks from today.
14. On deposition of the amount of Rs.10,000/-, the bail bonds
furnished by the appellant shall stand discharged.
15. The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
(DINESH MEHTA),J
27-raksha/-
(Uploaded on 10/10/2025 at 04:42:56 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
