[Cites 10, Cited by 0]
Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Baliya And Anr vs State (2026:Rj-Jd:4392) on 22 January, 2026
Author: Farjand Ali
Bench: Farjand Ali
[2026:RJ-JD:4392]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 304/1997
1. Baliya alias Balwant Singh son of Binjraj Singh
2. Kamal Singh son of Khet Singh
Both residents of Minya Ka Tala, District Barmer
----Appellant
Versus
State of Rajasthan
----Respondent
For Appellant(s) : Ms. Yogita Mohnani
For Respondent(s) : Mr. N.S. Chandawat, DyGA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FARJAND ALI
Judgment
22/01/2026
1. The instant criminal appeal under Section 374(2) of the Code
of Criminal Procedure has been filed by the appellants being
aggrieved by the judgment dated 02.06.1997 passed by the Court
of Special Judge (SC/ST Act), District & Sessions Court, Balotra,
whereby the appellant Baliya @ Balwant Singh was convicted for
the offences under Sections 324 IPC, 323/34 IPC and Section 3(1)
(x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of
Atrocities) Act, whereas the appellant Kamal Singh was convicted
for the offences under Sections 324/34 IPC, 323 IPC and Section
3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention
of Atrocities) Act. Both the appellants were sentenced to undergo
simple imprisonment of six months for the offence under Section
(Uploaded on 27/01/2026 at 01:15:58 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:4392] (2 of 5) [CRLA-304/1997]
324 IPC / 324/34 IPC, simple imprisonment of three months for
the offence under Section 323 IPC / 323/34 IPC, and simple
imprisonment of six months along with fine of Rs.500/- each for
the offence under Section 3(1)(x) of the SC/ST Act, with default
stipulation, with all the sentences directed to run concurrently.
2. Briefly stated, the facts giving rise to the present appeal are
that on the intervening night of 24/25.10.1995, the complainant
alleged that while he was returning towards his village after
attending agricultural work, he was intercepted by the appellants
and assaulted with a lathi and a kulhadi, causing injuries on his
person. On the basis of the report lodged, investigation was
conducted and after completion thereof, charge-sheet was filed.
The trial court, upon appreciation of the oral and documentary
evidence, found the prosecution case proved and convicted and
sentenced the appellants as aforesaid.
3. Learned counsel for the appellants initially addressed the
Court on the question of conviction also; however, upon some
deliberation, he did not press the appeal on merits of conviction
and confined his submissions only to the prayer for reduction of
sentence. Learned counsel submitted that at the time of the
incident, appellant Baliya @ Balwant Singh was about 23 years of
age and appellant Kamal Singh was about 22 years of age. As of
today, both the appellants are in their early fifties, having crossed
approximately 53 years and 52 years of age respectively. It was
urged that the appellants were young at the time of occurrence,
belonged to a poor rural background, and were the sole bread
(Uploaded on 27/01/2026 at 01:15:58 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:4392] (3 of 5) [CRLA-304/1997]
earners of their respective families. It was further contended that
the appellants have suffered immense mental agony, social stigma
and financial hardship on account of protracted criminal
proceedings spanning nearly three decades. The appellants had
remained in incarceration for about 25 days during
investigation/trial. Learned counsel submitted that the appellants
are not habitual offenders, have no prior criminal antecedents
and, even after the present incident, no other criminal case has
been registered against them. It was also urged that with
advancing age, the appellants are now suffering from age-related
ailments and that sending them back to jail after about thirty
years would serve no fruitful purpose and would rather be
counter-productive.
4. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor opposed the prayer for
reduction of sentence and submitted that the offences relate to an
assault coupled with an offence under the SC/ST Act and,
therefore, the sentence awarded by the trial court does not call for
any leniency.
5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have
carefully considered the submissions made. I have also minutely
perused the record of the case. Upon a thorough scrutiny of the
evidence and findings recorded by the trial court, this Court finds
no perversity, illegality or infirmity in the impugned judgment of
conviction warranting interference. The findings recorded by the
trial court are based on proper appreciation of evidence and do
not suffer from any error worth interference.
(Uploaded on 27/01/2026 at 01:15:58 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:4392] (4 of 5) [CRLA-304/1997]
6. However, on the question of sentence, this Court is of the
considered view that the matter deserves re-examination. The
incident pertains to the year 1995. The appellants were in their
early twenties at the time of occurrence and have since crossed
more than three decades of their lives under the shadow of
criminal litigation. The injuries suffered by the victim were simple
in nature. The appellants have already undergone a part of the
sentence during the course of trial. There is no material on record
to show that they have indulged in any criminal activity either
prior to or after the present occurrence.
7. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in of Haripada Das Vs. State
of West Bangal reported in (1998) 9 SCC 678 and Alister
Anthony Pareira vs. State of Maharashtra reported in 2012 2
SCC 648 has held that while considering the question of sentence,
the Court must strike a balance between the nature of the offence
and the mitigating circumstances, including the age of the
accused, passage of time, period already undergone, and the
object of sentencing. Applying the aforesaid principles and taking
into account the totality of the facts and circumstances of the
case, including the long lapse of time of about thirty years, the
age and present condition of the appellants, their clean
antecedents and the period of incarceration already undergone,
this Court is of the opinion that ends of justice would be met if the
sentence awarded to the appellants is reduced to the period
already undergone by them.
(Uploaded on 27/01/2026 at 01:15:58 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:4392] (5 of 5) [CRLA-304/1997]
8. Accordingly, the appeal is partly allowed. While the
conviction of the appellants for the aforementioned offences is
maintained, the substantive sentence awarded to them is reduced
to the period already undergone.
9. The appellants are on bail. They are not required to
surrender. Their bail bonds and surety bonds stand discharged. All
pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.
10. Let a copy of this judgment along with the record be sent
back to the trial court forthwith.
(FARJAND ALI),J
221-Pramod/-
(Uploaded on 27/01/2026 at 01:15:58 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
