Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 1966 (RAJ)

Poonjia @ Poonja v. State Of Rajasthan

2025-12-08

FARJAND ALI

body2025
JUDGMENT : FARJAND ALI, J. 1. The present appeal has been preferred at the instance of the accused–appellants, calling into question the legality, propriety, and sustainability of the judgment of conviction dated 24.08.1993 and the consequent order of sentence dated 02.09.1993, rendered by the learned Sessions Judge, Banswara in Sessions Case No.94/1990 whereby they were convicted and sentenced as under:- Name of the Accused Offence for which Convicted Substantive Sentence Fine and Default Sentence Poonjia @ Poonja 304-II IPC 8 years’ RI Fine of Rs.2000/- and in default to undergo six months SI Poonjia @ Poonja 325/34 IPC One Year SI Fine of Rs.500/- and in default to further undergo three months’ RI Peeter 304-II r.w. Sec.34 of the IPC Given benefit of Probation u/s 360 Cr.P.C. and Ordered to pay compensation u/s 5 of the Probation of Offenders Act to injured Hom Singh and widow Smt. Kapoori Rs.1,000/- and Rs.1,500/- respectively 2. Succinctly stated, the prosecution case unfolds from an allegation that the accused–appellants were responsible for causing the death of one Jorji and for inflicting injuries upon Hom Singh, allegedly by pelting stones. The edifice of the prosecution rests substantially upon the testimony of the injured eyewitness Hom Singh, who was examined during trial as PW-1. 2.1. As per the narrative propounded by the prosecution, on the fateful day of the occurrence, Hom Singh along with his family members was engaged in agricultural operations in their field. At that juncture, the accused persons, accompanied by Kalu and Kamli, allegedly arrived at the place of cultivation, purportedly armed with deadly weapons, and objected to the ongoing agricultural activity, reprimanding and scolding the complainant party. Owing to the altercation, Hom Singh retreated towards his house; however, the accused are alleged to have pursued him. 2.2. It is further alleged that accused Punjula, wielding a stone, struck Hom Singh from behind, resulting in injury to his leg, and thereafter hurled another stone which landed on the lumbar region of his father, Jorji. The situation escalated momentarily but was subsequently defused owing to the intervention of nearby villagers, who attempted to pacify the parties and restore order. Thereafter, both injured persons were shifted to the hospital for medical treatment. 2.3. The situation escalated momentarily but was subsequently defused owing to the intervention of nearby villagers, who attempted to pacify the parties and restore order. Thereafter, both injured persons were shifted to the hospital for medical treatment. 2.3. Tragically, during the intervening night of the second day of treatment, Jorji succumbed to the injuries sustained, culminating in the registration of the case against the accused for causing grievous injury to Hom Singh and for the homicidal death of Jorji. The medical evidence adduced by the prosecution includes the injury report (Exhibit P-9) of Hom Singh, which records a lacerated wound on the inner aspect of the right leg, opined to be grievous in nature. The post-mortem report (Exhibit P-8) pertaining to the deceased Jorji enumerates three injuries, of which two were minor abrasions on non-vital parts of the body. However, Injury No.1, a lacerated wound on the skull, proved fatal, as it resulted in a fracture of the right parietal bone, leading to his eventual demise. 2.4 In the course of trial, the prosecution examined as many as eleven witnesses in support of its case and tendered various documentary exhibits into evidence to substantiate the allegations levelled against the accused–appellants. The defence, on the other hand, did not examine any witness nor was any documentary evidence adduced on its behalf. 2.5 Upon a cumulative appreciation of the oral testimonies and the documentary evidence brought on record, the learned Trial Court arrived at the conclusion that the prosecution had succeeded in proving its case beyond reasonable doubt. Consequently, the accused–appellants were held guilty and were convicted and sentenced as under, vide the judgment of conviction and order of sentence impugned herein. Hence the instant appeal. 3. Upon a careful reappraisal of the evidence on record, this Court finds no illegality, perversity, or material infirmity in the findings of guilt recorded by the learned Trial Court so as to warrant interference on the question of conviction. 3.1 The prosecution case rests primarily on the testimony of injured eyewitness Hom Singh (PW-1), whose presence at the scene is natural and stands conclusively established by the contemporaneous medical evidence. His testimony is consistent, cogent, and has remained unshaken in cross-examination. The injury report (Ex. P-9) fully corroborates his version. 3.2 The ocular account finds further corroboration from the medical evidence. The post-mortem report of the deceased Jorji (Ex. His testimony is consistent, cogent, and has remained unshaken in cross-examination. The injury report (Ex. P-9) fully corroborates his version. 3.2 The ocular account finds further corroboration from the medical evidence. The post-mortem report of the deceased Jorji (Ex. P-8) records a fatal head injury resulting in fracture of the parietal bone, which is consistent with the prosecution version of stone-pelting and sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. 3.3 The contention of the defence that the incident was sudden and without premeditation does not dilute the prosecution case as to the participation and culpability of the accused. At best, such a plea bears relevance to the quantum of sentence and not to the sustainability of the conviction. 3.4 The learned Trial Court has correctly applied the law in holding the appellant guilty under Section 304 Part II IPC , as the evidence clearly establishes that the act was done with the knowledge that it was likely to cause death. The conviction under Section 325 /34 for causing grievous hurt to PW-1 Hom Singh is equally supported by reliable oral and medical evidence. 3.5 This Court finds no reason to differ from the well-reasoned conclusions of the Trial Court. The conviction of the appellant Poonjia @ Poonja under Sections 304 Part II IPC and 325/34 , and the conviction of co-accused Peetar along with the grant of probation in his favour, are hereby affirmed. 4. Having affirmed the conviction of the appellant Poonjia @ Poonja for the offence under Section 304 Part II IPC and Section 325 /34 , this Court now proceeds to examine the question of quantum of sentence. 4.1 It is trite that sentencing is not a mechanical exercise but a judicious balancing of the nature of the offence, the circumstances in which it was committed, the degree of culpability, and the personal circumstances of the offender. Even where the conviction is unassailable, the sentence must satisfy the test of proportionality, fairness, and justice. 4.2 Undoubtedly, the offence in question falls under Section 304 Part II IPC , which is a serious offence involving loss of human life. However, the facts established on record unmistakably indicate that the occurrence was not premeditated. Even where the conviction is unassailable, the sentence must satisfy the test of proportionality, fairness, and justice. 4.2 Undoubtedly, the offence in question falls under Section 304 Part II IPC , which is a serious offence involving loss of human life. However, the facts established on record unmistakably indicate that the occurrence was not premeditated. It arose out of a sudden quarrel relating to agricultural activity and land use, and the act complained of was the result of a momentary flare-up rather than a calculated design to cause death. The weapon used was a stone picked up at the spot and not a lethal weapon carried with intent. 4.3 A significant mitigating circumstance emerges from the age of the appellant at the time of the incident. In his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C., appellant Poonjia stated his age to be 20–21 years, whereas the Trial Court considered his age to be 25–26 years. Even accepting the latter estimation, it is evident that the appellant was a young adult between 18 to 22 years of age at the relevant time. Youthful indiscretion, lack of maturity, and impulsive conduct are recognised mitigating factors, particularly when the offence is not pre-planned. 4.4 The parity between co-accused also deserves consideration. The co-accused Peetar, who stated his age to be 19–20 years, has been extended the benefit of probation under Section 360 Cr.P.C., notwithstanding his conviction under Section 304 Part II read with Section 34 IPC . While parity is not an inflexible rule, sentencing disparity must be founded on sound reasons. The material on record does not disclose such a marked distinction in culpability as would justify a sentence of eight years’ rigorous imprisonment for Poonjia, while granting probation to a similarly placed co-accused of comparable age. 4.5 The socio-economic background of the appellant cannot be ignored. The appellant Poonjia belongs to a Scheduled Tribe, hails from a tribal area, and is a poor person, earning his livelihood through manual labour. He is stated to be the sole breadwinner of his family. The object of sentencing is not to wreak vengeance but to reform and reintegrate. Re-incarcerating the appellant at this belated stage would not only uproot him from settled life but would also visit disproportionate hardship upon innocent family members who depend upon him for survival. 4.6 The period of incarceration already undergone by the appellant is also a relevant factor. The object of sentencing is not to wreak vengeance but to reform and reintegrate. Re-incarcerating the appellant at this belated stage would not only uproot him from settled life but would also visit disproportionate hardship upon innocent family members who depend upon him for survival. 4.6 The period of incarceration already undergone by the appellant is also a relevant factor. He remained in custody for a substantial period during the course of trial and post-conviction before his sentence was suspended in the present appeal. Thereafter, he has remained on bail for decades without any allegation of misuse of liberty. His conduct during this prolonged interregnum weighs in favour of leniency. 4.7 The extraordinary delay in the conclusion of proceedings is another compelling circumstance. The incident occurred in the year 1990. The trial concluded after about three years, and the present appeal has remained pending since 1993. For over three decades, the appellant has lived under the constant shadow of criminal proceedings, the proverbial sword of Damocles hanging over his head. Such prolonged mental agony and uncertainty constitute a form of punishment recognised by judicial precedents while moulding the sentence. 4.8 Taking an overall view of the matter, the youthful age of the appellant at the time of the incident, absence of premeditation, parity with the co-accused, socio-economic vulnerability, substantial incarceration already undergone, long lapse of time, and the reformative theory of punishment, this Court is of the considered opinion that sending the appellant back to prison to serve the remaining sentence would serve no meaningful or rehabilitative purpose. 5. Consequently, the appeal is allowed in part, while affirming the conviction of the appellant Poonjia @ Poonja for the offences under Sections 304 Part II IPC and 325/34 , the sentence of imprisonment awarded to him is modified to the period already undergone. 5.1 The appellant Poonjia @ Poonja is presently on bail. He is not required to surrender, and his bail bonds stand discharged. 5.2 There shall be no interference with the conviction of co- accused Peetar or with the order granting him the benefit of probation under Section 360 Cr.P.C., which is hereby maintained. 6. All pending applications are disposed of. 7. The record be returned to the trial court.