[Cites 10, Cited by 0]
Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Ran Singh And Ors vs State (2026:Rj-Jd:7258) on 9 February, 2026
Author: Farjand Ali
Bench: Farjand Ali
[2026:RJ-JD:7258]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 20/1996
1.Ran Singh S/o Radhakishan R/o Neem, Police Station
Hamirvas, District Churu
2. Om Prakash S/o Mala Ram, R/o Neem, Police Station
Hamirvas, District Churu
----Appellant
Versus
The State Of Rajasthan
----Respondent
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Anirudh Singh Rathore
Mr. Kirpa Ram
Mr. Rahul Bishnoi for Mr. Jaidev Singh
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Surendra Bishnoi, AGA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FARJAND ALI
Judgment
09/02/2026
1. The instant appeal under Section 374 (2) of the CrPC has
been preferred assailing the judgment dated 15.12.1995 passed
by the learned Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act
Cases, Churu in Criminal Case No.3/1990, whereby the appellants
have been convicted and sentenced as under :-
Name of the Offence Sentence Fine & default
appellants for of imprisonment sentence
which convicted awarded
Ran Singh Section 3(1) of the 6 months' SI Rs.200/- and in default
SC/ST Act to undergo on month's
SI
Section 352 IPC - Rs.200/- and in default
to undergo on month's
SI
Om Prakash Section 352 IPC - Rs.200/- and in default
to undergo on month's
SI
2. According to the prosecution, the facts of the case, briefly
stated, are that a written report was lodged by the complainant,
(Uploaded on 11/02/2026 at 05:43:39 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:7258] (2 of 6) [CRLA-20/1996]
Bhursingh, at Police Station Hamirvas on 13.03.1990. It was
alleged therein that, as per the customary practice followed every
year, on 10.03.1990 at about 3:00 to 3:30 PM, when members of
the Harijan community proceeded to a designated place to
perform the traditional Holi ceremony, accused Radhakishan
appeared at the spot carrying a firearm. He was accompanied by
Ransingh, Indrasingh, Sumer Singh, Madan Singh, Pratap, and Om
Prakash.
2.1. It was further alleged that when the members of the Harijan
community attempted to perform the Holi rituals, accused
Radhakishan and his associates forcibly uprooted the Holi
structure and threw it aside. Thereafter, accused Teja Ram and
Shivaramb assaulted certain members of the community with
sticks, while the complainant was subjected to physical assault by
way of slaps and fist blows. In addition to physical violence, the
accused persons allegedly hurled caste-based abuses such as
"Ded", "Puda", and "Chamar", and further threatened that since
the complainant's community had not voted in accordance with
their dictates, they would not be permitted to celebrate Holi.
2.2. Owing to such threats, intimidation, and humiliation, the
complainant and other community members were terror-stricken
and refrained from stepping outside their homes for nearly two
days. Upon receipt of the complaint, the police registered a formal
case and, after completion of investigation, filed a charge-sheet in
respect of the aforesaid offences. The matter was thereafter
committed to the competent court for trial, being triable
exclusively by the Special Court.
(Uploaded on 11/02/2026 at 05:43:39 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:7258] (3 of 6) [CRLA-20/1996]
2.3. Charges were framed against all the accused persons under
Sections 147 and 323 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal
Code. Further, except accused Om Prakash, all other accused were
charged under Section 3(1) of the Scheduled Castes and
Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. All the accused
pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. During trial, eight prosecution
witnesses were examined and documentary evidence was
produced. Upon appreciation of the evidence on record, the
learned Special Judge acquitted accused Radhakishan, Inder
Singh, Sumer Singh, and Madan Singh of all charges, while
convicting accused Ran Singh under Section 3(1) of the SC/ST Act
and Section 352 of the Indian Penal Code, and accused Om
Prakash under Section 325 of the Indian Penal Code, sentencing
them accordingly. Aggrieved thereby, the accused preferred the
present appeal.
2.4. At this juncture, it is apposite to note that as per the report
submitted by the learned Deputy Government Advocate, appellant
No.2, Om Prakash, has expired. Consequently, in view of the
order-sheet dated 10.10.2025, the appeal qua appellant No.2
stands abated. Thus, the present appeal survives only with
respect to appellant No.1, Ran Singh.
3. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that the
conviction is unsustainable, as the learned Trial Court itself
disbelieved the core prosecution version insofar as four accused
persons are concerned, thereby eroding the very substratum of
the case. It was argued that once the principal narrative has been
(Uploaded on 11/02/2026 at 05:43:39 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:7258] (4 of 6) [CRLA-20/1996]
rejected in substantial measure, the residual allegations cannot be
safely relied upon. It was further submitted that the gravamen of
the prosecution case was directed against the main accused,
Radhakishan, and since this pivotal allegation was not accepted,
the remaining version becomes inherently unreliable.
3.1. Learned counsel further submitted that the prosecution failed
to establish the alleged existence of a separate Holi celebration for
members of the complainant's caste, which constituted a
foundational premise of the prosecution case. It was also
contended that the alleged injuries to Teja Ram and Shish Ram
were not proved by any cogent medical or corroborative evidence.
Emphasis was also placed on the delay in lodging the FIR, which,
according to learned counsel, was inadequately explained on the
purported grounds of fear and an alleged Panchayat, thereby
suggesting deliberation and embellishment. Lastly, it was prayed
that the appeal may be allowed and the impugned judgment be
quashed and set aside.
4. Per contra, learned Deputy Government Advocate opposed
the appeal and supported the impugned judgment, submitting
that the conviction rests upon reliable, consistent, and legally
admissible evidence and does not warrant interference.
5. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant, learned
Deputy Government Advocate, and carefully perused the material
available on record.
6. Upon an exhaustive reappraisal of the evidence and a
considered evaluation of the rival submissions, this Court finds
(Uploaded on 11/02/2026 at 05:43:39 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:7258] (5 of 6) [CRLA-20/1996]
that the findings of guilt recorded by the learned Trial Court are
based on a sound and judicious appreciation of evidence and are
free from perversity or legal infirmity. The prosecution has
established beyond reasonable doubt the involvement of appellant
No.1 in the incident. The testimonies of the complainant and
supporting witnesses, read in conjunction with the documentary
evidence, present a coherent and credible account. No ground is
made out to interfere with the conviction of appellant No.1.
6.1. However, while affirming the conviction, this Court is duty-
bound to revisit the quantum of sentence. The incident pertains to
the year 1990, and the appellant has remained entangled in
criminal proceedings for over three decades. Such protracted
litigation has inevitably subjected the appellant to sustained
mental agony and social stigma. The record does not disclose any
subsequent criminal conduct, and the incident appears to have
arisen from a localized dispute rather than entrenched criminality.
6.2. The appellant's youth at the time of the incident, his clean
antecedents, and his conduct during the pendency of trial and
appeal, having remained on bail without misuse of liberty, tilt the
balance in his favour. Over the years, the appellant appears to
have reintegrated into society as a law-abiding citizen. In these
circumstances, further incarceration would neither serve a
rehabilitative purpose nor advance the ends of justice.
6.3. Nevertheless, this Court must unequivocally reiterate that
acts involving violence and caste-based humiliation strike at the
very fabric of civil society and cannot be condoned. The rule of law
(Uploaded on 11/02/2026 at 05:43:39 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:7258] (6 of 6) [CRLA-20/1996]
mandates peaceful resolution of disputes, and any deviation
therefrom warrants judicial censure.
6.4. Considering the mitigating circumstances and guided by the
principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court 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 is of the considered opinion that the ends of
justice would be adequately served by reducing the substantive
sentence to the period already undergone.
6.5. The appellant is hereby formally admonished for his unlawful
conduct and is placed under a stern caution to maintain peace,
social harmony, and unwavering adherence to the rule of law. Any
future infraction shall invite strict penal consequences without
indulgence.
7. For the reasons aforesaid, the appeal is partly allowed. The
judgment of conviction dated 15.12.1995 passed by the learned
Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act Cases, Churu
in Criminal Case No.3/1990 is affirmed insofar as appellant No.1 is
concerned; however, the substantive sentence is reduced to the
period already undergone.
8. All pending applications stand disposed of.
9. The record be returned forthwith to the learned Trial Court.
(FARJAND ALI),J
92-Mamta/-
(Uploaded on 11/02/2026 at 05:43:39 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
