[Cites 15, Cited by 0]
Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Ram Kumar And Ors vs State on 7 January, 2026
Author: Farjand Ali
Bench: Farjand Ali
[2025:RJ-JD:55075]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODH-
PUR
S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 227/1995
1. Ram Kumar S/o Nanu Ram,
2. Nanu Ram S/o Hukma Ram,
3. Hanuman S/o Nanu Ram,
4. Rai Sahab alias Saheb Ram S/o Nanu Ram,
5. Devi Lal S/o Nanu Ram,
All resident of Binjayala, P.S. Ghamoodwali, District Sri Gan-
ganagar.
----Appellant
Versus
The State of Rajasthan
----Respondent
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Sangram Singh (Amicus Curiae)
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Rajesh Bhati, AGA with
Mr. Ravindra Singh
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FARJAND ALI
Judgment
Date of Conclusion of Arguments : 08/12/2025
Date on which Judgment is Reserved : 08/12/2025
Full Judgment or Operative Part : Full Judgment
Date of Pronouncement : 07/01/2026
BY THE COURT:-
1. The instant appeal stands dismissed to the extent of appellant
No. 2, Nanu Ram, vide order dated 28.08.2023 passed by this
Court.
(Uploaded on 09/01/2026 at 12:16:37 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:55075] (2 of 7) [CRLA-227/1995]
2. Insofar as the remaining appellants are concerned, the present
criminal appeal has been preferred being aggrieved by the judg-
ment dated 23.05.1995 passed by the learned Additional Sessions
Judge No. 1, Sri Ganganagar, Camp at Sri Karanpur, in Sessions
Case No. 31/89, whereby they were convicted and sentenced to
undergo three years' rigorous imprisonment along with a fine of
Rs. 500/- under Section 326/149 of the IPC, and awarded lesser
sentences for the offences under Sections 325/149, 324/149, and
148 of the IPC.
3. Learned counsel Shri Sangram Singh is hereby appointed as
Amicus Curiae to assist the Court on behalf of the appellants un-
der the free legal aid scheme of Rajasthan State Legal Services
Authority. The remuneration to learned counsel shall be paid by
RSLSA as the per the rules.
4. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that an FIR was
lodged by Bal Raj on 22.06.1988, stating that he and his nephew,
Rajendra Prasad, were traveling from Shri Ganganagar. When they
reached the area near Canal 49 LNP, they were intercepted by
Devi Lal, Saheb Ram, Hanuman, Ram Kumar, Ram Sahai, and
Nanu Ram. Hanuman was armed with a 12-bore pistol, while the
others were carrying lathis and gandasis. Saheb Ram inflicted a
gandasi blow on Rajendra Prasad's head, causing him to fall. The
group then began assaulting both Bal Raj and Rajendra Prasad
with lathis and gandasis. Hanuman attempted to fire at them, but
(Uploaded on 09/01/2026 at 12:16:37 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:55075] (3 of 7) [CRLA-227/1995]
the shot missed. Additionally, they snatched a diary, passbook,
and Rs. 2010/- from Rajendra Prasad's pocket.
4.1 Following this, the police registered the FIR against the six
accused persons for offenses under Sections 307, 147, 148, 149,
382, and Section 27 of the Indian Arms Act. After investigating
the matter, the police filed a charge sheet only against Ram Ku-
mar, Devi Lal, Ram Sahai, and Ram Rai, and did not file a charge
sheet against Hanuman and Nanu Ram. However, later, the Court
took cognizance of the matter and included both Hanuman and
Nanu Ram.
4.2 Subsequently, the learned Trial Court framed charges and
commenced the trial. During the trial, the prosecution examined
six witnesses and several documents were exhibited. The state-
ments of the accused were recorded under Section 313 of the
Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.), and the defense examined wit-
nesses D.W.1 to D.W.4. After the conclusion of the trial, the
learned Trial Judge acquitted the accused appellants under Sec-
tions 307/149 and 382/149 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), but
convicted the appellants under the other aforementioned sections
by judgment dated 23.05.1995. Hence, this appeal is filed before
this court.
5. After arguing the case on merits to some extent, learned
counsel appearing for the appellants submits that he will not assail
conviction of the appellants and confines his arguments to the al-
ternative prayer of reduction of the sentence awarded by the trial
(Uploaded on 09/01/2026 at 12:16:37 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:55075] (4 of 7) [CRLA-227/1995]
court. He submits that the incident in the present case pertains to
the year 1988. The offences involved are related to voluntarily
causing hurt/grievous hurt and rioting. The appellants were young
at the time of the incident. They have already suffered agony of
protracted trial for 30 years. The maximum sentence awarded by
the trial court is rigorous imprisonment of 3 years. They have re-
mained in judicial custody for few months. With these submis-
sions, learned counsel prays that by taking a lenient view, the
sentences awarded to the appellants may be reduced to the period
already undergone.
6. Learned public prosecutor has, of course, been able to de-
fend the case on merits but does not refute the fact that the ap-
pellants have remained behind the bars for significant time.
7. Heard learned counsels present for the parties and gone
through the materials available on record.
8. Since the instant appeal against conviction is not pressed
and after perusing the material, nothing is noticed which requires
interference in the finding of guilt reached by learned trial court,
this court does not wish to interfere in the judgment of conviction.
Accordingly, the judgment of conviction is maintained.
9. So far as the question relating to the quantum of sentence is
concerned, this Court deems it appropriate to take into considera-
tion the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case. It is
significant to note that the incident in question dates back to the
year 1988, i.e., more than three decades ago. The offences for
which the appellants stand convicted pertain to voluntarily causing
(Uploaded on 09/01/2026 at 12:16:37 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:55075] (5 of 7) [CRLA-227/1995]
hurt and grievous hurt along with rioting, and do not fall within
the category of heinous crimes warranting maximum punitive
measures at this belated stage.
9.1 It cannot be lost sight of that the right to a speedy and expe-
ditious trial is an integral facet of Article 21 of the Constitution of
India and stands recognized as one of the most cherished and
valuable rights available to an accused. In the present case, the
appellants have endured the ordeal of a protracted criminal trial
and appellate proceedings spanning over a period of more than 30
years, during which they have remained entangled in the corridors
of courts, facing uncertainty, anxiety, and mental trauma. Such
prolonged pendency, by itself, constitutes a relevant mitigating cir-
cumstance while determining the appropriate sentence.
The maximum sentence imposed by the learned trial court is three
years' rigorous imprisonment, and it is not in dispute that the ap-
pellants have already undergone a few months of incarceration. At
the time of the incident, the appellants were relatively young, and
there is nothing on record to suggest that they are habitual of-
fenders or that they misused the liberty granted to them during
the pendency of the proceedings. The long passage of time has
evidently taken its toll, not only by way of mental agony but also
in terms of financial hardship, social stigma, and disruption of nor-
mal life, which the appellants have been compelled to suffer for
decades.
9.2 This Court is also guided by the consistent view adopted by
this Court as well as the authoritative pronouncements of the
(Uploaded on 09/01/2026 at 12:16:37 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:55075] (6 of 7) [CRLA-227/1995]
Hon'ble Supreme Court, particularly in Haripada Das v. State of
West Bengal reported in (1998) 9 SCC 678 and Alister An-
thony Pareira v. State of Maharashtra reported in (2012) 2
SCC 648, wherein it has been held that while awarding sentence,
courts must strike a judicious balance between the nature of the
offence and the mitigating circumstances, including delay in trial,
period of incarceration already undergone, age of the accused,
and the overall impact of prolonged litigation on their lives.
Considering the age of the appellants, the nature of the offences,
the period already spent in custody, the enormous lapse of time
since the occurrence, their standing in society, and the mental and
financial suffering undergone by them, this Court is of the consid-
ered opinion that the ends of justice would be adequately met if
the sentence imposed upon the appellants is reduced to the period
already undergone by them.
10. Accordingly, the judgment of conviction dated 23.05.1995
passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge No.1, Sri Gan-
ganagar Camp at Sri Karanpur in Sessions Case No.31/89 is af-
firmed but the quantum of sentence awarded by the learned trial
court under abovementioned sections, is modified to the extent
that the sentence the appellants has undergone till date would be
sufficient and justifiable to serve the interest of justice. The appel-
lants are on bail. They need not surrender. Their bail bonds are
discharged.
(Uploaded on 09/01/2026 at 12:16:37 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:55075] (7 of 7) [CRLA-227/1995]
11. The instant appeal is allowed in part. Pending applications, if
any, including the suspension of sentence application, are dis-
posed of.
12. Record be sent back forthwith.
(FARJAND ALI),J
15-divya/-
(Uploaded on 09/01/2026 at 12:16:37 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
