Rajasthan High Court – Jodhpur
Dilbagh Singh And Ors vs State (2025:Rj-Jd:29632) on 7 July, 2025
Author: Farjand Ali
Bench: Farjand Ali
[2025:RJ-JD:29632]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 603/1996
1. Dilbagh Singh S/o Shri Ranjeet Singh B/c Jat Sikh, Aged
about 48 years, R/o 18 R.B. Tehsil Raisinghnagar, District Sri
Ganganagar.
2. Harmeet Singh S/o Shri Surjeet Singh B/c Jat Sikh, Aged
about 55 years, R/o 18 R.B. Tehsil Raisinghnagar, District Sri
Ganganagar.
3. Jeet Singh S/o Shri Kartar Singh B/c Jat Sikh, Aged about 75
years,R/o 18 R.B. Tehsil Raisinghnagar, District Sri Ganganagar.
4. Kuldeep Singh s/o Shri Atma Singh B/c Jat Sikh, Aged about
56 years,R/o 18 R.b. Tehsil Raisinghnagar, District
Sri Ganganagar.
5. Surjeet Singh S/o Shri Mohar Singh, B/c Jat Sikh, Aged about
88 years, R/o 18 R.B. Tehsil Raisinghanagar, District Sri
Ganganagar.
6. Balkar Singh S/o Shri Ranjeet Singh B/c Jat Sikh Aged about
50 years, R/o 18 R.B. Tehsil Raisinghanagar, District Sri
Ganganagar.
(At present lodged in Sub Jail Sri Karanpur)
----Appellant
Versus
State of Rajasthan
----Respondent
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Dhirendra Singh, Sr. Advocate
assisted by Ms. Priyanka Borana
Mr. Venkat Poonia
Mr. DL Rawla
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Mrinal Khatri
Mr. Surendra Bishnoi, AGA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FARJAND ALI
Order
07/07/2025
1. The instant criminal appeal under Section 374 Cr.P.C. has
been preferred by the petitioners against the judgment dated
13.12.1996 passed by ADJ No.1, Sriganganagar Camp at Sri-
Karanpur in Sessions Case No. 57/1993 whereby learned trial
(Downloaded on 14/07/2025 at 09:21:09 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:29632] (2 of 6) [CRLA-603/1996]
Judge convicted the appellants Harmeet Singh, Jeet Singh and
Surjeet Singh for the offence under Section 148 of IPC and
awarded two years of RI with a fine of Rs. 500/- to each appellant.
Further convicted the appellant Harmeet Singh for the offence
under Section 307 IPC and awarded five years of RI with a fine of
Rs. 1000/- and for the offence under Section 27 of Indian Arms
Act awarded one year RI with a fine of Rs. 100/- and lastly
appelants Dilbagh Singh, Balkar Singh and Kuldeep Singh for the
offence under Section 147 of IPC and awarded one year of RI with
a fine of Rs. 500/- each and convicted appellants Dilbagh Singh,
Balkar Singh, Kuldeep Singh, Jeet Singh and Surjeet Singh for the
offence under Section 307/149 of IPC and awarded five years of
RI with a fine of Rs. 1000/-.
2. Briefly stating the facts of the case are that on 14.09.1989 at
around 9:30 PM, Sohan Singh lodged a verbal report at Police
Station Raisinghnagar stating that his friend Balvinder Singh was
attacked by a group of individuals. According to the report, Sohan
Singh and Balvinder Singh were returning from Raisinghnagar
after visiting Shri Madan Lal Arora’s cow and had reached
Gajsinghpur. From there, they proceeded towards their village in a
jeep owned by one Bhuto. As they reached the turn of Chak 18
R.B., another blue-colored jeep began following them. In that jeep
were Harmeet Singh, Sarjeet Singh, Jeet Singh and they were
armed with 12 bore gun, lathi, and gandasi, along with 3-4 other
unidentified individuals. When Sohan Singh and Balvinder Singh
stopped in front of Balvinder’s house, the occupants of the second
jeep got out and Harmeet Singh fired a shot at Balvinder Singh,
(Downloaded on 14/07/2025 at 09:21:09 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:29632] (3 of 6) [CRLA-603/1996]
hitting him on the forehead, chest, and other parts of the body,
causing him to collapse and bleed profusely. It was alleged that
the attack was motivated by a prior complaint made by Balvinder
Singh against Harmeet Singh regarding water theft.
2.1 Based on this report, FIR No. 356/89 was registered under
Sections 307, 147, 148, 149 IPC and Section 27 of the Indian
Arms Act. After investigation, a charge sheet (No. 287/89 dated
26.12.1989) was filed against all accused. As the matter was
triable by the Court of Sessions, it was committed to the
Additional District Judge No. 1, Camp at Sri Ganganagar. After
trial, the learned Judge convicted all appellants vide judgment
dated 13.12.1996, leading to the present appeal.
3. Heard learned counsels appearing on behalf of the parties
and learned AGA appearing on behalf of the State and perused the
material available on record.
4. After arguing the case on merits to some extent, learned
counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that he will not
assail conviction of the petitioners and confines his arguments to
the alternative prayer of reduction of the sentence awarded by the
trial court. He submits that the incident in the present case
pertains to the year 1989. No adverse remark has been passed
over their conduct except the impugned judgment. The petitioners
have already suffered agony of protracted trial of 36 years. With
these submissions, learned counsel prays that by taking a lenient
view, the sentence awarded to the petitioners may be reduced to
the period already undergone.
(Downloaded on 14/07/2025 at 09:21:09 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:29632] (4 of 6) [CRLA-603/1996]
5. As far as the question of quantum of sentence in concerned,
it is worthwhile to note that the occurrence in this case pertains to
the year 1989. The right to speedy and expeditious trial is one of
the most valuable and cherished rights guaranteed under the
Constitution. The petitioners have already suffered the agony of
protracted trial, spanning over a period of more than 35 years and
has been in the corridors of the court for this prolonged period. In
addition to this, it has also been taken note of that the injuries
were neither grievous nor dangerous to life, so keeping all the
accused behind bars 36 years after the incident is not appropriate,
especially considering that the victim has passed away due to
natural causes. In view of the facts noted above, the case of the
petitioners deserves to be dealt with leniency. The petitioners also
deserves the benefit of the consistent view taken by this court in
this regard. Thus, guided by the judicial pronouncements made
by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the cases 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 and considering the facts and circumstances of
the case, age of appellants, their criminal antecedents, their
status in the society and the fact that they faced financial hardship
and had to go through mental agony, this court is of the view that
ends of justice would be met, if sentence imposed upon the
petitioner for each count is reduced to the one already undergone
by him.
(Downloaded on 14/07/2025 at 09:21:09 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:29632] (5 of 6) [CRLA-603/1996]
6. Accordingly, the judgment of conviction dated 13.12.1996
passed by ADJ No.1, Sriganganagar Camp at Sri-Karanpur in
Sessions Case No. 57/1993 is affirmed but the quantum of
sentence awarded by the learned trial court in which the
maximum punishment was of 5 years under Section 307 of IPC is
modified to the extent that the sentence they have undergone till
date would be sufficient and justifiable to serve the interest of
justice.
7. The victim, Balvinder Singh must have undergone
considerable pain and suffering; therefore, he was entitled to
compensation. Now that he has passed away due to natural death,
his legal representatives are entitled to receive such
compensation. In my considered view, the imposition of monetary
punishment upon the appellants, in lieu of the reduction in
sentence undergone, would meet the ends of justice.
8. Accordingly, a compensation of Rs. 50,000/- in total is
awarded to the legal representatives of the deceased victim. All
the appellants shall deposit the total amount of Rs. 50,000/-
before the learned Trial Court within a period of 60 days from the
date of receipt of a copy of this order. They shall be jointly and
severally liable for the same.
9. Upon deposit of the aforesaid amount, the learned Trial Court
shall summon the legal representatives of the deceased victim and
thereafter disburse the amount to them in equal shares.
(Downloaded on 14/07/2025 at 09:21:09 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:29632] (6 of 6) [CRLA-603/1996]
10. The criminal appeal is allowed in part. Stay application and
all pending applications, if any, are disposed of.
11. Record be sent back.
(FARJAND ALI),J
11-Mamta/-
(Downloaded on 14/07/2025 at 09:21:09 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)