[Cites 10, Cited by 0]

Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur

Urn: Crlr / 2655U / 2008Sher Mohd.And Anr vs State on 1 May, 2026

Author: Farjand Ali

Bench: Farjand Ali

[2026:RJ-JD:20567]

      HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
                       JODHPUR
            S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 1232/2008

1. Sher Mohd. S/o Shafi Mohd.
2. Rehmat W/o Shafi Mohd. R/o Bagdi Nagar, Police Station
Bagdi Nagar, District Pali
                                                                   ----Petitioner
                                    Versus
State Of Rajasthan
                                                                 ----Respondent


For Petitioner(s)         :     Mr. Suresh Kumbhat
                                Mr. Naman Bhansali
                                Mr. M. Dadhich
For Respondent(s)         :     Mr. N.S. Chandawat, Dy.G.A.
                                Mr. Pradeep Rajpurohit
                                Mr. L.S. Udawat
                                Mr. Pradeep Rajpurohit.



                HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FARJAND ALI

                                    ORDER

DATE OF CONCLUSION OF ARGUMENTS                                  07/04/2026
DATE ON WHICH ORDER IS RESERVED                                  07/04/2026
FULL JUDGMENT OR OPERATIVE PART                                    Full Order
DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT                                             01/05/2026


BY THE COURT:-

1. The instant criminal revision petition has been preferred

assailing the judgment dated 21.06.2002 passed by the learned

Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sujat City, District Pali in

Criminal Case No. 449/1994, whereby the accused-petitioners,

namely Shad Mohammed, Sharif Mohammed, Shafi Mohammed,

Rehmat and Hajara, came to be convicted for the offences

punishable under Sections 148, 325/149, 341/149 and 323/149

(Uploaded on 05/05/2026 at 02:37:10 PM)

[2026:RJ-JD:20567] (2 of 9) [CRLR-1232/2008]

IPC. By the said judgment, the learned trial Court imposed the

following sentences:

Under Section 148 IPC - six months' simple imprisonment with

fine of Rs.150/- each, and in default, seven days' simple

imprisonment.

Under Section 325/149 IPC - ten months' simple imprisonment

with fine of Rs.200/- each, and in default, fifteen days' simple

imprisonment.

Under Section 341/149 IPC - one month's simple imprisonment

with fine of Rs.100/- each, and in default, seven days' simple

imprisonment.

Under Section 323/149 IPC - one month's simple imprisonment

with fine of Rs.100/- each, and in default, seven days' simple

imprisonment.

Aggrieved thereby, certain accused persons preferred

criminal appeals before the learned Additional Sessions Judge,

Sojat City, being Criminal Regular Appeal Nos.25/2002 and

26/2002. The learned appellate Court, upon reappraisal of the

evidence, partly allowed the appeals and extended benefit of

doubt to some of the accused in respect of certain charges, while

maintaining conviction under Sections 148 and 323/149 IPC.

Insofar as petitioner Rehmat was concerned, benefit of probation

was granted, whereas petitioner Sher Mohammed was directed to

deposit fine.

(Uploaded on 05/05/2026 at 02:37:10 PM)

[2026:RJ-JD:20567] (3 of 9) [CRLR-1232/2008]

2. During pendency of the present revision petition, petitioner

Sher Mohammed expired. A Coordinate Bench of this Court, vide

order dated 08.08.2025, recorded the said fact and permitted

legal representatives of petitioner No.1 of continuation of

proceedings to the extent permissible in law.

3. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned

Public Prosecutor, and have minutely gone through the entire

record.

4. At the very threshold, it deserves emphasis that the

jurisdiction of this Court in revision is narrow, supervisory and

corrective in nature. This Court is not expected to undertake a

fresh trial or re-appreciate evidence as an appellate forum unless

glaring perversity, patent illegality, miscarriage of justice, or

jurisdictional error is demonstrated.

4.1. Where two Courts below have concurrently examined the

factual substratum of the prosecution case and have recorded

findings after appreciation of oral and documentary evidence,

interference in revision must remain circumscribed and sparingly

exercised.

5. A careful scrutiny of the impugned judgments reveals that

the learned appellate Court undertook a meticulous and

threadbare reassessment of the entire factual matrix. It sifted

exaggeration from truth, separated doubtful allegations from

proved circumstances, and ultimately modified the conviction after

extending benefit of doubt wherever warranted.

(Uploaded on 05/05/2026 at 02:37:10 PM)

[2026:RJ-JD:20567] (4 of 9) [CRLR-1232/2008]

5.1. The learned appellate Court did not mechanically affirm the

judgment of the trial Court; rather, it subjected the evidence to

analytical scrutiny and only thereafter maintained conviction under

Sections 148 and 323/149 IPC.

5.2. The material on record unmistakably discloses that the

incident arose out of a village altercation involving members of

both sides. Participation of the accused in the unlawful assembly

and infliction of simple injuries stood sufficiently established. Thus,

the ultimate conclusion of guilt under Sections 148 and 323/149

IPC cannot be termed arbitrary, capricious, or legally

unsustainable. Thus, no perversity has been pointed out so as to

persuade this Court to upset the concurrent findings of fact.

Accordingly, the challenge laid to the conviction is devoid of merit.

5.3. Learned counsel for the petitioners has vehemently

contended that the appellate Court adopted an inconsistent

standard by extending benefit of probation to petitioner Rehmat

while declining similar indulgence to petitioner Sher Mohammed

without assigning cogent reasons.

5.4. There is substance in the submission that sentencing

discretion must be informed by rational parameters and cannot be

exercised upon invisible or undisclosed considerations. The

mandate underlying Section 361 Cr.P.C. obliges the Court, in

appropriate cases, either to extend the benefit of probation or to

record special reasons for declining the same.

5.5. The philosophy of modern penology has progressively shifted

from purely retributive punishment to reformative and

(Uploaded on 05/05/2026 at 02:37:10 PM)

[2026:RJ-JD:20567] (5 of 9) [CRLR-1232/2008]

rehabilitative justice. The Probation of Offenders Act was enacted

precisely to infuse this humane and corrective approach into

sentencing jurisprudence, particularly in cases involving first-time

offenders, minor offences, village skirmishes, and circumstances

not indicative of hardened criminality.

5.6. In the present case, the occurrence emanated from a

localized domestic or village dispute. The parties belonged to a

small rural settlement. It is also borne out that there existed a

cross-version/cross-case, indicating mutual confrontation rather

than unilateral aggression. There is nothing on record to show

prior criminal antecedents of the petitioners. These were

undeniably mitigating factors which merited serious consideration

at the stage of sentence.

5.7. Notwithstanding the above observations, petitioner Sher

Mohammed has admittedly expired during pendency of the

proceedings. In that view of the matter, any further adjudication

regarding extension of probationary benefit or alteration of

substantive sentence qua him has become largely academic and

infructuous. The Courts do not decide sterile issues divorced from

practical consequence unless compelling legal necessity exists.

Therefore, no further operative order on sentence qua deceased

petitioner Sher Mohammed is required.

5.8. At this juncture, this Court deems it appropriate to advert to

a significant procedural infirmity which, though not fatal to the

prosecution case, nevertheless casts a perceptible shadow on the

completeness of the adjudicatory exercise undertaken by the

(Uploaded on 05/05/2026 at 02:37:10 PM)

[2026:RJ-JD:20567] (6 of 9) [CRLR-1232/2008]

Courts below. It is discernible from the record that the occurrence

in question had generated cross-cases between the rival factions;

however, the same were not tried simultaneously or in a

coordinated manner.

5.9. The settled principle of criminal jurisprudence mandates that

where two cases arise out of the same transaction, particularly

involving rival versions of a single occurrence, they ought to be

tried together or in close proximity by the same Court so as to

ensure a comprehensive and consistent evaluation of evidence.

The failure to adopt such a course has resulted in a fragmented

appreciation of the incident. Consequently, the nature and extent

of injuries sustained by both sides were not subjected to holistic

scrutiny. Nonetheless, such lapse, in the absence of demonstrable

prejudice, does not vitiate the conviction recorded.

5.10. Further, it cannot be lost sight of that the incident pertains to

the year 1994, and the petitioner No.1 has remained embroiled in

protracted criminal litigation for over three decades, enduring the

attendant mental distress, uncertainty and social ramifications.

The prolonged pendency of proceedings itself operates as a

punitive factor, which, in appropriate cases, warrants due

consideration while calibrating the quantum of sentence.

5.11. Viewed from the prism of proportionality, the occurrence

emanated from a localized village dispute devoid of any

premeditated criminal design. The sentence, therefore, must bear

a rational nexus with the gravity of the misconduct and not

transgress into excessive penalisation. The doctrine of

(Uploaded on 05/05/2026 at 02:37:10 PM)

[2026:RJ-JD:20567] (7 of 9) [CRLR-1232/2008]

proportionality, now firmly embedded in sentencing jurisprudence,

obligates the Court to ensure that punishment remains

commensurate with the nature of the offence, attendant

circumstances and the overall conduct of the accused.

5.12. Insofar as petitioner No.1 is concerned, an additional

dimension arises pertaining to his service career. It is borne out

that he had rendered long years of service without blemish. A

solitary lapse, arising out of a sudden altercation, cannot be

permitted to eclipse an otherwise untainted and meritorious

service record. To hold otherwise would be to visit

disproportionate civil consequences upon the dependents of the

deceased petitioner, which the law does not countenance.

By way of illustration, where an employee has devoted 25

years of unblemished service and, in the twilight of his career,

becomes embroiled in an isolated incident, it would be manifestly

unjust to obliterate the entirety of his accrued service benefits on

account of such singular lapse. The principles of fairness, equity

and proportionality demand that past service cannot be rendered

nugatory for a lone aberration.

5.13. This Court is of the considered opinion that the conviction of

petitioner No.1 shall not, ipso facto, operate to the detriment of

his service entitlements. His legal representatives shall be entitled

to all such retiral and consequential benefits as may have accrued

to him during his lifetime, strictly in accordance with the

applicable service rules. Any competent authority, while

adjudicating such claims, shall do so uninfluenced by the mere

(Uploaded on 05/05/2026 at 02:37:10 PM)

[2026:RJ-JD:20567] (8 of 9) [CRLR-1232/2008]

factum of conviction in the present case, and shall accord due

weight to his long, unblemished service record.

5.14. This direction is further reinforced by the plenary

powers vested in this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and its

supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution Of

India, enabling it to secure the ends of justice and prevent

miscarriage thereof.

5.15. In that view of the matter, petitioner No.1 shall also be

held entitled to parity, to the limited extent, with the benefit

extended to co-accused Rehmat, insofar as the mitigating

circumstances and equitable considerations are concerned. These

observations shall form an integral part of the present judgment.

Upon comprehensive consideration of the record, this Court is

satisfied that:

(i) The learned appellate Court conducted a careful and reasoned

re-evaluation of evidence;

(ii) The conviction of the petitioners under Sections 148 and

323/149 IPC is founded upon proper appreciation of evidence;

(iii) No perversity, illegality or jurisdictional infirmity warranting

interference in revisional jurisdiction is made out;

(iv) Insofar as petitioner No.1 (Sher Mohammed) is concerned, no

further adjudication on sentence survives owing to his demise,

subject to observations regarding service benefits;