[Cites 6, Cited by 0]
Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Hari Babu And Anr vs State (2026:Rj-Jd:6710) on 4 February, 2026
Author: Farjand Ali
Bench: Farjand Ali
[2026:RJ-JD:6710]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 14/1996
1. Hari Babu S/o Ramesh Rawal
2. Ramesh S/o Shiv Dayal Rawal R/o Rampura Tehsil Girva,
District Udaipur.
----Appellant
Versus
State Of Rajasthan
----Respondent
For Appellant(s) : Ms. Mansi Pipal, Amicus Curiae
For Respondent(s) : Mr. N.S. Chandawat, Dy.G.A.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FARJAND ALI
Order
REPORTABLE
04/02/2026
1. The instant Criminal Appeal has been preferred by the
appellant against the judgment dated 19.12.1995 passed by the
learned Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities ) Act Cases,
Udaipur in Sessions Case No.114/1991 whereby he has been
convicted and sentenced as under:-
Name of the Offence for Substantive Fine and default
accused which sentence sentence
convicted
1. Hari Babu Section 333 r.w. 2 years'RI Fine of Rs.500/- in
2. Ramesh 34 of the IPC default to further
undergo three
months RI
Section 353 IPC 6 months' RI Fine of Rs.100/- in
default to further
undergo one month's
RI
Section 341 IPC 15 days'SI Fine of Rs.50/- in
default to further
undergo one week's
imprisonment
All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently.
(Uploaded on 10/02/2026 at 05:10:19 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:6710] (2 of 7) [CRLA-14/1996]
2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that on 03.04.1990, a
complaint was lodged by the complainant, Viram Singh (P.W.5), at
the Hathi Pol Police Station, Udaipur. The complaint led to the
registration of a First Information Report (FIR) under Sections
341, 323 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code, as evidenced by
FIR (Ex.P.3).
2.1. Subsequent to the registration of the FIR, an investigation
ensued, during which Viram Singh was subjected to a medical
examination. The medical report revealed that one of the injuries
sustained by the complainant was grievous in nature, thereby
elevating the seriousness of the incident under scrutiny.
2.2. As the investigation unfolded, it became apparent that the
altercation occurred while Viram Singh (P.W.5) was in the
discharge of his official duties, which necessitated the amendment
of the charges to include offences under Sections 341, 353, and
333 of the Indian Penal Code. A charge-sheet encompassing these
revised charges was duly filed in the Court of the Judicial
Magistrate, Udaipur, from where the case was committed for trial
before the learned Sessions Judge, Udaipur. Ultimately, the matter
was adjudicated by the learned Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention
of Atrocities) Act Cases, Udaipur who vide judgment dated
19.12.1995, convicted and sentenced the appellants as per the
details specified in the aforementioned para. The appellants,
aggrieved by the said judgment, have filed the present appeal
before this Court.
3. The leamed Amicus Curlae contended that the trial court's
conviction of the appellants is flawed, both in law and on the facts
(Uploaded on 10/02/2026 at 05:10:19 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:6710] (3 of 7) [CRLA-14/1996]
of the case. It is asserted that the complainant, Viram Singh
(P.W.5), was indeed a public servant, but this fact has not been
established beyond a reasonable doubt. The complainant's own
statement places him in the vicinity of "Gundia Bheruji" in Udaipur
at the time of the incident, which does not conclusively indicate he
was engaged in official duties.
3.1. The learned Amicus Curiae further highlighted that P.W.6, the
Investigating officer, during cross-examination, admitted that the
assertion of the complainant performing his official duties was
merely a suggestion from the accused, and not a fact established
during the investigation. Moreover, the defense's argument that
the complainant was at the scene to repair a telephone line does
not inspire confidence and is liable to be discarded. The failure to
investigate or substantiate the complainant's role as a public
servant during the incident undermines the prosecution's case.
3.2. Furthermore, the Amicus Curiae submitted that the material
on record does not establish any intentional wrongdoing by the
appellants. Even if the complainant were engaged in official duties
at the time of the incident, there is no evidence to demonstrate
any intent on the part of the appellants to harm him. On the
contrary, the dispute between the parties appears to be purely of
a private nature, and there is no cogent material linking the
alleged incident to the discharge of the complainant's official
duties.
3.3. The learned Amicus Curiae concluded that the prosecution
has failed to establish its case beyond a reasonable doubt, and as
(Uploaded on 10/02/2026 at 05:10:19 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:6710] (4 of 7) [CRLA-14/1996]
such, the conviction under Sections 353 and 333 IPC cannot be
sustained. Lastly, he submited that the appeal be allowed, the
impugned judgment dated 19.12.1995 be quashed and set aside,
and the appellants be acquitted.
4. Learned Dy. Govt. Advocate, appearing on behalf of the State,
submitted that the submissions made by the counsel for the
appellants are without merit. He strongly opposes the appeal and
supports the impugned judgment. It is prayed that the appeal be
dismissed and the conviction of the appellants be upheld.
5. I have heard the learned Amicus Curiae, learned Dy. Govt.
Advocate and perused the material as made available to this
Court.
6. After a thorough examination of the evidence and a meticulous
reappraisal of the submissions made by both parties, this Court
finds no discernible flaw or perversity in the trial court's findings of
guilt. The prosecution has, beyond a reasonable doubt,
established the appellants' involvement in unlawful assembly,
trespassing, and the destruction of property. The consistent
testimonies of the complainant, Viram Singh (P.W.5), along with
corroborating witness statements and documentary evidence,
collectively substantiate the paforesaid charges. The trial court's
careful scrutiny of the evidence resulted in a well-reasoned
conviction, free from material contradiction or infirmity, and as
such, this Court affirms the appellants' conviction.
6.1. While the conviction is upheld, it is essential to review the
appropriateness of the sentence Imposed. The incident in question
(Uploaded on 10/02/2026 at 05:10:19 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:6710] (5 of 7) [CRLA-14/1996]
occurred in 1990, and the appellants have been involved in
criminal proceedings for a prolonged period, enduring significant
delay in the adjudication of the matter. The psychological strain
borne by the appellants throughout the lengthy legal process
cannot be disregarded. While the actions of the appellants are
undoubtedly unlawful and warrant condemnation, they appear to
stem from a localized familial dispute rather than a manifestation
of any entrenched criminal tendencies.
6.2. The appellants' ages at the time of the incident play a crucial
role in this Court's approach to sentencing. Hari Babu, who was 21
years old, and Ramesh, aged 45, had no prior criminal history.
This case represents their sole instance of criminality, and there is
no evidence to suggest they have engaged in any further unlawful
activities. The appellants have remained on bail throughout the
trial and appeal and have not misused the liberty granted by the
Court. Over time, they have demonstrated a reintegration into
Society as law-abiding citizens. Despite the seriousness of the
offense, their actions do not reflect a consistent pattern of criminal
behavior. Considering the passage of time and their apparent
rehabilitation, imposing further incarceration would serve no
rehabilitative purpose and would only cause undue hardship to
their families, who have already endured the consequences of this
prolonged legal battle.
6.3. While acknowledging the mitigating factors, this Court must
emphasize the Importance of upholding the rule of law. The
appellants' actions, although understandable within certain
(Uploaded on 10/02/2026 at 05:10:19 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:6710] (6 of 7) [CRLA-14/1996]
emotional contexts, cannot be condoned. Taking the law into one's
own hands is a clear breach of societal norms, and such conduct
must be censured. This Court cannot overlook the need to
reinforce the principle of peaceful dispute resolution.
6.4. In light of the mitigating circumstances, such as the
appellants' youth at the time of the incident, their lack of prior
criminal history, and the prolonged duration of the legal
proceedings, this Court finds it just to reduce the sentence.
Following the principles set out in Haripada Das v. State of
West Bengal [(1998) 9 SCC 678] and Alister Anthony
Pereira v. State of Maharashtra [(2012) 2 SCC 648], this
Court believes that justice would be better served by reducing the
substantive sentence to the period already undergone, which
amounts to approximately one month of incarceration.
6.5. While the appellants should be acknowledged for their
apparent rehabilitation over the years, this Court finds it
necessary to issue a clear admonition. The appellants are hereby
admonished for their unlawful actions, and they are strongly
cautioned to maintain peace and adhere to the rule of law in the
future. Any further deviation from lawful conduct will not be
tolerated by the judicial system and will invite stricter
consequences.
7. For the reasons discussed, the appeal is partly allowed. The
judgment of conviction dated 19.12.1995 passed by the learned
Special Jude, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocoties) Act Cases, Udaipur
in Sessions Case No.114/1991 is affirmed, but the substantive
(Uploaded on 10/02/2026 at 05:10:19 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:6710] (7 of 7) [CRLA-14/1996]
sentence is reduced to the period already undergone. The
appellants are admonished for their unlawful conduct and are
cautioned to respect the law moving forward.
8. All pending applications are disposed of.
9. The record be returned to the trial court.
10. Ms. Mansi Pipal, learned Amicus Curiae, shall be
remunerated by the State Legal Services Authority in accordance
with the rules applicable in that regard.
(FARJAND ALI),J
54-Mamta/-
(Uploaded on 10/02/2026 at 05:10:19 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
