[Cites 5, Cited by 0]
Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Sita Ram vs State on 16 January, 2026
Author: Farjand Ali
Bench: Farjand Ali
[2025:RJ-JD:54808]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 498/1995
Sita Ram, aged about 24 years, s/o Shri Heera, by caste Dhakar,
resident of Sarsiya Charnan, Dist. Bhilwara.
----Appellant
Versus
The State of Rajasthan
----Respondent
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Rajiv Bishnoi
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Rajesh Bhati, AGA
Mr. Ravindra Singh
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FARJAND ALI
Order
DATE OF CONCLUSION OF ARGUMENTS : 08/12/2025
DATE ON WHICH JUDGMENT IS RESERVED : 08/12/2025
FULL JUDGMENTOR OPERATIVE PART : Full Order
DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 16/01/2026
BY THE COURT:-
1. The instant criminal appeal has been preferred by the
appellant, being aggrieved by the judgment dated 08.11.1995
passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Bhilwara (Camp Shahpura)
in Sessions Case No.107/1992, whereby the appellant was
convicted for the offence punishable under Section 307 of the
Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous
imprisonment for a period of three years, along with a fine of
Rs.1,000/-, and in default of payment thereof, to further undergo
rigorous imprisonment for three months.
2. Bereft of unnecessary elaboration, the facts essential for the
adjudication of the present appeal are that the incident occurred
on 25.12.1991 in the early hours of the morning. An oral report
(Uploaded on 20/01/2026 at 06:09:18 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:54808] (2 of 5) [CRLA-498/1995]
was lodged on 27.12.1991 by Hajari at Police Station Pander,
alleging that on a trivial issue, the appellant Sita Ram inflicted two
stick blows on the head of Chhotu, the brother of the complainant.
Both the appellant and the injured belong to the same village, a
fact which assumes relevance while moulding the relief on the
question of sentence. Upon registration of the case initially under
Sections 147, 341 and 323 IPC, investigation ensued, culminating
in the filing of a charge-sheet for the offences under Sections 307,
341 and 323 IPC.
2.1. The appellant was put to trial for the offences under Sections
307 and 323 IPC. During the course of trial, the prosecution
examined eleven witnesses. Upon being examined under Section
313 CrPC, the appellant denied the allegations and claimed false
implication. After hearing the learned Public Prosecutor and
learned defence counsel, and upon appreciation of the evidence,
the learned trial Court convicted the appellant under Section 307
IPC vide judgment dated 08.11.1995, which is the subject matter
of the present appeal.
3. At the very threshold of hearing, learned counsel appearing
for the appellant, with commendable candour and professional
fairness, submitted that the appellant does not assail the finding
of guilt and conviction recorded by the learned trial Court and
confines the challenge exclusively to the quantum of sentence. It
was urged that the occurrence pertains to the year 1991, and that
the appellant was of a young and impressionable age at the time
of the incident. Learned counsel further submitted that the
(Uploaded on 20/01/2026 at 06:09:18 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:54808] (3 of 5) [CRLA-498/1995]
appellant has endured the ordeal of a protracted criminal trial and
appellate proceedings for over thirty-four years, thereby suffering
considerable mental, social, and financial distress.
3.1. It was further brought to the notice of the Court that the
maximum sentence awarded is three years' rigorous
imprisonment, and that the appellant has already remained in
judicial custody during the periods 31.12.1991 to 15.02.1992 and
08.11.1995 to 22.11.1995. It was contended that remanding the
appellant to prison after such an extraordinary lapse of time would
not serve any meaningful penological purpose and would militate
against the principles of reformative and restorative justice.
4. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor supported the
judgment of conviction on merits, though he did not dispute the
fact that the appellant has already undergone a part of the
sentence.
5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties at considerable
length and bestowed its anxious, thoughtful, and judicious
consideration upon the impugned judgment and the material
available on record.
5.1. Since the finding of conviction is not pressed, and upon an
independent scrutiny of the record, this Court finds no infirmity,
perversity, or illegality in the conclusion arrived at by the learned
trial Court with regard to the guilt of the appellant. The conviction
under Section 307 IPC is accordingly affirmed and maintained.
5.2. Coming to the question of sentence, this Court cannot
remain oblivious to the fact that the incident occurred more than
(Uploaded on 20/01/2026 at 06:09:18 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:54808] (4 of 5) [CRLA-498/1995]
three decades ago, and that the appellant and the injured Chhotu
are residents of the same village, and are required to coexist
within the same social milieu. Prolonged incarceration of the
appellant at this belated stage may rekindle animosity rather than
foster reconciliation. The administration of criminal justice,
particularly at the stage of sentencing, must not only punish the
offender but also strive to restore social harmony and communal
equilibrium.
5.3. Having regard to the age of the appellant, the period of
incarceration already undergone, the inordinate delay in
conclusion of proceedings, and the overarching need to maintain
peace and harmony between villagers, this Court is of the
considered opinion that the sentence already undergone by the
appellant would be sufficient to meet the ends of justice, provided
that the victim is adequately compensated.
6. Accordingly, while affirming the judgment of conviction dated
08.11.1995, the sentence imposed upon the appellant under
Section 307 IPC is modified, and it is directed that the period of
imprisonment already undergone shall be treated as sufficient
compliance. In furtherance of the principles of restorative justice,
the appellant is directed to deposit a sum of Rs.10,000/- before
the learned trial Court within a period of ninety (90) days from the
date of this judgment, which shall be disbursed to the injured
Chhotu or, in the event of his demise, to his legal heirs.
6.1. The appellant is presently on bail; he shall not be required to
surrender , and his bail bonds stand discharged , subject to
(Uploaded on 20/01/2026 at 06:09:18 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:54808] (5 of 5) [CRLA-498/1995]
compliance with the direction regarding payment of compensation.
7. The appeal is thus partly allowed in the aforesaid terms. All
pending applications, including the application for suspension of
sentence, stand disposed of.
8. The record be remitted forthwith to the Court concerned
along with a copy of this judgment, for information and necessary
compliance.
(FARJAND ALI),J
24-Mamta/-
(Uploaded on 20/01/2026 at 06:09:18 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
