Rajasthan High Court – Jodhpur
Ratan Lal vs State (2025:Rj-Jd:31855) on 18 July, 2025
Author: Manoj Kumar Garg
Bench: Manoj Kumar Garg
[2025:RJ-JD:31855] (1 of 5) [CRLA-186/1995]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 186/1995
1. Ratan Lal S/o Veni Ram, Aged about 60 years.
2. Kamlesh @ Kamla Shanker S/o Shankerlalji, Aged about 22
years.
3. Amritlal S/o Ratanlal, Aged 35 years.
4. Shankerlal S/o Veni Ram, Aged 50 years.
All residents of Village Dhanara, Police Station Begun,
District Chittorgarh.
----Appellant
Versus
State of Rajasthan, through PP.
----Respondent
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Jayant Jain
Ms. Urvashi Kalla
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vikram Singh Rajpurohit, PP
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR GARG
Order
18/07/2025
1. Instant criminal appeal has been filed by the appellants
against the judgment dated 28.04.1995 passed by learned
Additional Sessions Judge No.2, Chittorgarh in Sessions Case
No.211/1993 by which the learned Judge convicted the appellants
No.1 & 2 for offences under Sections 148, 452, 307/149 & 324
and sentenced them as mentioned below and while convicting the
appellants No.3 & 4 for offences under Sections 147, 452, 323
IPC, granted them the benefit of probation under Section 4(1) of
Probation of Offenders Act. The details of the sentence awarded to
the appellants No.1 & 2 as are under :
(Downloaded on 22/07/2025 at 08:32:12 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:31855] (2 of 5) [CRLA-186/1995]
Appellants No.1 & No.2
Offence Sentence Fine Sentence in
default of fine
Sec.307/149 IPC 4 years’ R.I. Rs.500/- 6 months’ S.I.
Sec.324 IPC 1 years’ R.I. Rs.100/- 10 days’ S.I.
Sec.148 IPC 3 months’ R.I. Rs.100/- 10 days’ S.I.
Sec.452 IPC 6 months’ S.I. Rs.100/- 10 days’ S.I.
2. All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently and the
period spent in judicial custody shall be adjusted in the original
imprisonment.
3. Brief facts of the case are that on 25.12.1992, complainant
Babulal submitted a report at Police Station Begun to the effect
that accused-appellants came and assaulted him and his elder
brother with deadly weapons. On the said report, Police registered
a case against the accused appellants and started investigation.
4. On completion of investigation, police filed challan against
the accused-appellants. Thereafter, the trial court framed charges
against the accused-appellants, who pleaded not guilty and
claimed trial.
5. During the course of trial, the prosecution examined as many
as ten witnesses in support of its case and also exhibited certain
documents. Thereafter, statements of the accused-appellants were
recorded under section 313 Cr.P.C. In defence, 3 witnesses were
examined and certain documents were exhibited.
6. Upon conclusion of the trial, the learned trial court vide
impugned judgment dated 28.04.1995 convicted and sentenced
the appellants for the offences as aforesaid. Hence, this criminal
appeal.
(Downloaded on 22/07/2025 at 08:32:12 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:31855] (3 of 5) [CRLA-186/1995]
7. The present appeal qua the appellants No.2–Kamlesh @
Kamla Shanker & appellant No.4–shankerlal has already been
dismissed as abated by this Court vide order dated 09.04.2025.
8. So far as appellant No.1–Ratanlal is concerned, at the
threshold, counsel submits that he does not challenge the finding
of conviction but since the occurrence is related to the year 1992
and the accused appellant No.1 has so far suffered a sentence of
about 22 days, out of total sentence of four years’ R.I., therefore,
it is prayed that the sentence awarded to the appellant No.1 for
the aforesaid offences may be reduced to the period already
undergone by him.
9. So far as appellant No.3–Amritlal is concerned, counsel
submits that the learned trial court has committed grave error in
convicting him for aforesaid offences as the prosecution has failed
to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubt. Counsel further
submits that there are material contradictions, omissions &
improvements in the statements of the prosecution witnesses.
Thus, it is prayed that the impugned judgment passed by the trial
court to the extent of convicting the appellant No.3 may be
quashed and set aside.
10. On the other hand, the Public Prosecutor opposed the
submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellants and
submitted that there is neither any occasion to interfere with the
sentence awarded to the accused appellants nor any compassion
or sympathy is called for in the said case.
11. 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.
(Downloaded on 22/07/2025 at 08:32:12 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:31855] (4 of 5) [CRLA-186/1995]
12. Undisputedly, the occurrence relates back to year 1992 and
the appellant No.1 Ratanlal has so far undergone a period of 22
days incarceration, out of total sentence of four years’ R.I., and
has also suffered the mental agony and trauma of protracted trial.
Thus, looking to the over-all circumstances and the fact that the
appellant No.1 has remained behind the bars for a considerable
time, it will be just and proper if the sentence awarded by the trial
court for offences under Sections 148, 324, 452 & 307/149 of IPC
is reduced to the period already undergone by the appellant No.1.
13. Accordingly, the appeal qua the appellant No.1 is partly
allowed. While maintaining the conviction of appellant No.1 for
offences under Sections 148, 324, 452 & 307/149 IPC, the
sentence awarded to him for the said offences is hereby reduced
to the period already undergone. The fine amount is also waived,
if not deposited by the appellant No.1. The appellant No.1 is on
bail. He need not surrender. His bail bonds are discharged.
14. So far as the appellant No.3 Amritlal is concerned, on perusal
of the impugned judgment of the trial court as well as record of
the case, it appears that while passing the impugned judgment,
the learned trial court has considered each and every aspect of
the matter and also considered the evidence produced before it in
right perspective. The prosecution has proved its case beyond all
reasonable doubts against the appellant No.3 before the trial court
and thus the learned trial court has rightly convicted the accused-
appellant No.3 for the offences under Section 147, 452 & 323 IPC.
While convicting the appellant No.3, the learned trial court has
given him the benefit of probation under Section 4(1) of the Act
and also directed him to deposit Rs.1000/- under Section 5 of the
(Downloaded on 22/07/2025 at 08:32:12 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:31855] (5 of 5) [CRLA-186/1995]
Act, which was ordered to be disbursed to PW-1 Babulal. The
judgment passed by the trial court is detailed and reasoned order
and thus, this court is not inclined to interfere in the findings given
by the trial below.
15. In the light of aforesaid discussion, the appellant No.3 has
failed to show any error of law or on facts on the basis of which
interference can be made by this Court in the impugned
judgments under challenge.
16. Accordingly, the criminal appeal qua appellant No.3 Amritlal
is hereby dismissed. However, it is ordered that if the appellant
No.3 has not deposited the amount of Rs.1000/- under Section 5
of the Act, then the same is hereby waived.
17. Pending applications, if any, shall stands disposed of.
18. Record, if received, be sent back forthwith.
(MANOJ KUMAR GARG),J
31-GKaviya/-
(Downloaded on 22/07/2025 at 08:32:12 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)