Balu And Ors vs State (2025:Rj-Jd:30508) on 12 July, 2025

Rajasthan High Court – Jodhpur

Balu And Ors vs State (2025:Rj-Jd:30508) on 12 July, 2025

Author: Manoj Kumar Garg

Bench: Manoj Kumar Garg

[2025:RJ-JD:30508]

      HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
                       JODHPUR
                     S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 590/1996

(1) Balu S/o Rama
(2) Gordhan S/o Rama
(3) Kamal S/o Rama
All B/c Dangi and R/o Chupna.
(At present lodged at District Jail Pratapgarh, in the process of
transfer to Central Jail Udaipur.)


                                                                     ----Appellants
                                       Versus
State of Rajathan
                                                                    ----Respondent


For Appellant(s)             :     Mr. Harshwardan Singh
For Respondent(s)            :     Mr. Deepak Choudhary, AAG assisted
                                   by Mr. KS Kumpawat



          HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR GARG

Judgment

12/07/2025

Instant criminal appeal has been filed by the appellants

under Section 374 Cr.P.C. against the judgment dated 30.11.1996

passed by learned Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities

Cases), Pratapgarh, in Sessions Case No.69/1994 by which the

learned Judge convicted the appellant No.3 for offence under

Section 304(1) IPC and appellants Nos.1 & 2 for offence under

Section 304(1) IPC R/w Section 34 IPC and sentenced them to

undergo seven years RI with fine of Rs.500/- each and in default

of payment of fine, to further undergo three months RI.

Brief facts of the case are that on 27.09.1992, complainant

Chenaram Purna submited a written report at Police Station Arnod

(Downloaded on 12/07/2025 at 09:19:17 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:30508] (2 of 3) [CRLA-590/1996]

to the effect that the accused-appellants along with other co-

accused persons came and assaulted Kana with stone. On the said

report, Police registered a case against the accused-appellants and

started investigation.

On completion of investigation, the police filed challan

against the accused appellants before the trial court. Thereafter,

the charges of the case were framed against the appellants, who

denied the same and claimed trial.

During the course of trial, the prosecution examined

nineteen witnesses and also exhibited certain documents.

Thereafter, statements of the appellants under section 313 Cr.P.C

were recorded. In defence, two witnesses were examined and one

document was exhibited.

Upon conclusion of the trial, the learned trial court vide

impugned judgment dated 30.11.1996 convicted and sentenced

the appellants as mentioned above.

At the threshold, counsel for the appellants does not

challenge the finding of conviction but it is submitted that the

occurrence relates back to year 1992 and the appellants No.1 & 2

have so far suffered a sentence of more than one & half months

and appellant No.3 has suffered a sentence of about one year &

four months, out of total sentence of seven years RI. In such

circumstances, it is prayed that the substantive sentence awarded

to the accused-appellants for the aforesaid offences may be

reduced to the period already undergone by them.

On the other hand, the learned AAG opposed the

submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellants and

submitted that there is neither any occasion to interfere with the

(Downloaded on 12/07/2025 at 09:19:17 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:30508] (3 of 3) [CRLA-590/1996]

sentence awarded to the accused appellants nor any compassion

or sympathy is called for in the said case.

I have perused the evidence of the prosecution as well as

defence and the judgment passed by the trial court regarding

conviction of the accused-appellants.

It is not disputed that the occurrence has taken place in the

year 1992 and the accused-appellants No.1 & 2 have so far

undergone a period of more than one & half months and appellant

No.3 has undergone a period of about one year & four months

incarceration, out of total sentence of seven years R.I., and so

also suffered the mental agony and trauma of protracted trial.

Thus, looking to the over-all circumstances and the fact that the

accused-appellants have remained behind the bars for

considerable time, it will be just and proper if the sentence

awarded by the trial court for offence under Sections 304(1) IPC

R/w Section 34 IPC is reduced to the period already undergone by

them.

Accordingly, the criminal appeal is partly allowed. While

maintaining the appellants’ conviction for offence under Section

304(1) IPC R/w Section 34 IPC, the sentence awarded to them for

aforesaid offence is hereby reduced to the period already

undergone. The fine amount is also waived, if not deposited by the

appellants. The appellants are on bail. They need not surrender.

Their bail bonds stand discharged.

The record of the courts below be sent back forthwith.

(MANOJ KUMAR GARG),J
54-MS/-

(Downloaded on 12/07/2025 at 09:19:17 PM)

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)