Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 1992 (RAJ)

Kailash S/o Lalaram v. State of Rajasthan

2025-12-11

RAVI CHIRANIA

body2025
ORDER : RAVI CHIRANIA, J. 1. The instant criminal revision petition under Section 397 read with 401 Cr.P.C. has been preferred against the judgment dated 18.06.2007 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Didwana in Criminal Appeal No.14/2005, whereby the judgment dated 27.09.2005 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Ladnu, in Criminal Original Case No. 228/2003 was modified to the extent that the default sentence of 10 days for each offence was reduced to 3 days and 7 days respectively for non-payment of fine for the offence under section 323 and 325/34 IPC . The petitioner was convicted and sentenced vide modified order dated 18.06.2007 as below: Conviction for offences under Sections: Sentences 323 IPC 6 months’ S.I. and a fine of Rs. 50/- and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo 3 days of S.I 325/34 IPC 1 year S.I and a fine of Rs.100/- and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo 7 days S.I All sentences were ordered to run concurrently 2. Succinctly stated, the facts of the case are that on 17.05.2003, complainant Ganga Ram (PW2) lodged a complaint (Ex.P-9) with Police Station, Jaswantgarh to the effect that at around 07:00 A.M., he had an altercation with one Hema Ram, who abused him while he was repairing a gap in the boundary fence in his agricultural field. Later, around 4:00 PM, when Ganga Ram was returning to the field then Hema Ram along with Kailash (petitioner), Bhagwana Ram, Narsi Lal and Lalu Ram arrived, and attacked his nephew Ramu Ram @ Sona Ram with sticks. When Ganga Ram tried to intervene, he was also pushed. On hearing his cries, Triloka Ram and Arjun Ram came and rescued Ramu Ram. As a result of assault, Ramu Ram sustained injuries on his head, arms and body along a scratch on his right-hand finger. The incident occurred on the common boundary of the agricultural fields of the parties and was witnessed by the women of the village. On this report, the police registered a case on 17.05.2003 vide F.I.R. No. 33/2003 against Kailash (petitioner), Hema Ram, Bhagwana Ram, Narsi Lal and Lalu Ram for the offences under Section 143 , 447, 323 and 341 IPC . On 27.08.2003, the police filed the chargesheet against the petitioner and co-accused Hema Ram under Section 323 , 325/34 . On this report, the police registered a case on 17.05.2003 vide F.I.R. No. 33/2003 against Kailash (petitioner), Hema Ram, Bhagwana Ram, Narsi Lal and Lalu Ram for the offences under Section 143 , 447, 323 and 341 IPC . On 27.08.2003, the police filed the chargesheet against the petitioner and co-accused Hema Ram under Section 323 , 325/34 . The learned Trial Court conducted the trial and punished the petitioner and one Hema Ram to undergo 6 months’ S.I. and a fine of Rs. 50/- and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo 10 days of S.I for the offence under section 323 IPC , and 1 year S.I and a fine of Rs.100/- and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo 10 days S.I. for the offence under 325/34 vide order dated 27.09.2005. The said order was modified by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Didwana in Criminal Appeal No.14/2005 to the extent that the default sentence of 10 days for each offence was reduced to 3 days and 7 days respectively for non-payment of fine for the offence under section 323 and 325/34 IPC , vide order dated 18.06.2007. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that both the courts below committed grave error in convicting the petitioner. It was submitted that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. The incident in question arose from a sudden quarrel over a pathway close to the agricultural fields of the two parties, and the role attributed to the petitioner is vague and omnibus in nature. 4. It was argued that there existed a cross-case, FIR No. 32/2003 dated 17.05.2003, arising out of the same incident, lodged by one Kailash Chandra, which culminated in the conviction of the complainant party, including Ganga Ram and Sona Ram, for offences under Sections 323 and 325/34 IPC . This, according to the learned counsel, clearly establishes that both parties sustained injuries in a mutual conflict arising out of a petty land dispute. The said material fact was not accorded due weightage by the courts below. 5. Learned counsel further argued that the FIR in the present case (FIR No. 33/2003) was lodged as a counter-blast to the earlier FIR No. 32/2003 lodged by the petitioner’s side, in order to create a defence for the complainant party. The said material fact was not accorded due weightage by the courts below. 5. Learned counsel further argued that the FIR in the present case (FIR No. 33/2003) was lodged as a counter-blast to the earlier FIR No. 32/2003 lodged by the petitioner’s side, in order to create a defence for the complainant party. The testimonies of the prosecution witnesses were inconsistent and biased, and did not attribute any specific overt act to the petitioner. 6. Lastly, counsel submitted that the co-accused, Hema Ram, who was similarly placed and convicted and punished for the same offence by the same judgment, has already been granted the benefit of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 by modification of sentence by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide the order dated 23.05.2025 in S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 573/2007 titled as Hema Ram Vs. State of Rajasthan . His sentence was reduced to the period already undergone, considering the fact that the incident is over 22 years old and the long incarceration has caused him sufficient mental, physical and economic hardships. The Court also took note of present age and age at the time of the incident. It is argued that denying the same relief to the present petitioner would be unjust and contrary to the principle of equality before law. 7. Per contra, the learned Public Prosecutor supported the impugned judgments, contending that the concurrent findings of fact recorded by the two courts below were based on proper appreciation of evidence and did not warrant interference in the revisional jurisdiction of this Court. 8. Heard learned counsel for the parties, considered the rival submissions and perused the record of the case. Though the power of this Court to re-appreciate evidence in revision is limited, interference is justified when there is manifest illegality, perversity, or gross miscarriage of justice. 9. The record clearly shows that the co-accused Hema Ram was granted the benefit of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 by modification of sentence by coordinate Bench of this Court in S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 573/2007, where the Court adopted a reformative approach while passing the order dated 23.05.2025. Both, the petitioner Kailash and co-accused Hemaram, were convicted by the same order by both the Courts below. The evidence does not indicate any distinction between their roles. Both, the petitioner Kailash and co-accused Hemaram, were convicted by the same order by both the Courts below. The evidence does not indicate any distinction between their roles. Therefore, denying similar relief to the petitioner would be unfair and inconsistent with the settled principle that similarly situated accused should receive similar treatment in sentencing. 10. Further, it is worth noting that the incident is more than 22 years old. The quarrel arose out of a civil dispute over a passage and developed into a sudden fight. This is a common occurrence in villages across India. Hema Ram has already undergone part of the sentence and was also given benefit of section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 by the trial court in the cross case. 11. Hon’ble the Supreme Court of India in the case of K. Pounammal Vs. State Represented By Inspector Of Police 2025 INSC 1014 , highlighted the need to apply the reformative approach while deciding the sentence. The relevant portion of the judgment is as hereunder: "7. The process of sentencing by the courts is guided by theories such as punitive, deterrent or reformative. Each school of thought has its own object and purpose to explain awarding of sentence and its utility. Amongst these theories, reformative approach has become increasingly acceptable to the modern jurisprudence. Reformation is something always considered progressive. When there are mitigating circumstances, the court would lean towards reducing of the sentence. The focus would be on the crime, and not on the criminal. The society and system would nurture the guilt with positivity, while selecting the sentence. 8. (...) the incident had taken place on 23.09.2002. Since then, more than two decades have passed by. The appellant underwent imprisonment for 31 days. The appellant is a widow lady. It was stated that she is now 75 years of age. The appellant has been staying alone, the husband having died, stated her learned counsel. She belongs to scheduled caste and has been spending her life negotiating all hardships. 9. The prolongation of a criminal case for an unreasonable period is in itself a kind of suffering. It amounts to mental incarceration for the person facing such proceedings. For a person who is convicted and who has appealed against his or her conviction and sentence and who everyday awaits the fate of litigation, spends time in distress. 9. The prolongation of a criminal case for an unreasonable period is in itself a kind of suffering. It amounts to mental incarceration for the person facing such proceedings. For a person who is convicted and who has appealed against his or her conviction and sentence and who everyday awaits the fate of litigation, spends time in distress. In the present-day system of administration of justice, in which proceedings have often go on protracted unreasonably and therefore unbearably, the passage of long time itself makes the person suffer a mental agony 10. The aspects in the present case as highlighted above that the incident had occurred more than 22 years ago and that the age of the widow appellant is 75 years who stays alone, the Court finds it appropriate that she may not be made to undergo the imprisonment again. In the totality of the facts and circumstances, the imprisonment already undergone by her is treated to be adequate sentence." 12. In view of the above discussion, this Court finds no reason to interfere with the conviction recorded by the courts below, which is based on proper appreciation of evidence. However, considering that the accused was of young age at the time of the incident, that the matter has arisen out of a civil dispute over a passage which is a common occurrence in villages, that the incident occurred over 22 years ago, that petitioner has no criminal antecedents, and also that co-accused Hema Ram has been granted similar benefit by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court in S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 573/2007, and in the interest of justice, maintaining parity, it would be appropriate to take a lenient and same view in the matter. The substantive sentence imposed upon the petitioner deserves to be modified to the period already undergone by him similar to the co-accused. 13. Accordingly, the present criminal revision petition is partly allowed. 14. The conviction of the petitioner, Kailash S/o Lalaram, for the offences under Sections 323 and 325/34 IPC , as recorded by the trial court and affirmed by the appellate court, is maintained. 15. The substantive sentences of imprisonment awarded to the petitioner are modified to the period already undergone by him. 16. The sentence of fine imposed by the trial court, as upheld by the appellate court, is maintained. 15. The substantive sentences of imprisonment awarded to the petitioner are modified to the period already undergone by him. 16. The sentence of fine imposed by the trial court, as upheld by the appellate court, is maintained. The petitioner is directed to deposit the fine amount, if not already deposited, within six weeks from today. 17. In default of payment of fine, the petitioner shall undergo the default sentence as modified by the appellate court, i.e., 3 days for the offence under Section 323 IPC and 7 days for the offence under Section 325 /34 . 18. The petitioner is already on bail. He need not surrender. His bail bonds stand discharged accordingly.