Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2026 DIGILAW 143 (RAJ)

Hari Babu, S/o Ramesh Rawal v. State Of Rajasthan

2026-02-04

FARJAND ALI

body2026
ORDER : FARJAND ALI 1. The instant Criminal Appeal has been preferred by the appellant against the judgment dated 19.12.1995 passed by the learned Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities ) Act Cases, Udaipur in Sessions Case No.114/1991 whereby he has been convicted and sentenced as under:- Name of the accused Offence for which convicted Substantive sentence Fine and default sentence 1. Hari Babu 2. Ramesh Section 333 r.w. 34 of the IPC 2 years'RI Fine of Rs.500/- in default to further undergo three months RI Section 353 IPC 6 months' RI Fine of Rs.100/- in default to further undergo one month's RI Section 341 IPC 15 days'SI Fine of Rs.50/- in default to further undergo one week's imprisonment All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. 2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that on 03.04.1990, a complaint was lodged by the complainant, Viram Singh (P.W.5), at the Hathi Pol Police Station, Udaipur. The complaint led to the registration of a First Information Report (FIR) under Sections 341, 323 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code, as evidenced by FIR (Ex.P.3). 2.1. Subsequent to the registration of the FIR, an investigation ensued, during which Viram Singh was subjected to a medical examination. The medical report revealed that one of the injuries sustained by the complainant was grievous in nature, thereby elevating the seriousness of the incident under scrutiny. 2.2. As the investigation unfolded, it became apparent that the altercation occurred while Viram Singh (P.W.5) was in the discharge of his official duties, which necessitated the amendment of the charges to include offences under Sections 341, 353, and 333 of the Indian Penal Code. A charge-sheet encompassing these revised charges was duly filed in the Court of the Judicial Magistrate, Udaipur, from where the case was committed for trial before the learned Sessions Judge, Udaipur. Ultimately, the matter was adjudicated by the learned Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act Cases, Udaipur who vide judgment dated 19.12.1995, convicted and sentenced the appellants as per the details specified in the aforementioned para. The appellants, aggrieved by the said judgment, have filed the present appeal before this Court. 3. The leamed Amicus Curlae contended that the trial court's conviction of the appellants is flawed, both in law and on the facts of the case. The appellants, aggrieved by the said judgment, have filed the present appeal before this Court. 3. The leamed Amicus Curlae contended that the trial court's conviction of the appellants is flawed, both in law and on the facts of the case. It is asserted that the complainant, Viram Singh (P.W.5), was indeed a public servant, but this fact has not been established beyond a reasonable doubt. The complainant's own statement places him in the vicinity of "Gundia Bheruji" in Udaipur at the time of the incident, which does not conclusively indicate he was engaged in official duties. 3.1. The learned Amicus Curiae further highlighted that P.W.6, the Investigating officer, during cross-examination, admitted that the assertion of the complainant performing his official duties was merely a suggestion from the accused, and not a fact established during the investigation. Moreover, the defense's argument that the complainant was at the scene to repair a telephone line does not inspire confidence and is liable to be discarded. The failure to investigate or substantiate the complainant's role as a public servant during the incident undermines the prosecution's case. 3.2. Furthermore, the Amicus Curiae submitted that the material on record does not establish any intentional wrongdoing by the appellants. Even if the complainant were engaged in official duties at the time of the incident, there is no evidence to demonstrate any intent on the part of the appellants to harm him. On the contrary, the dispute between the parties appears to be purely of a private nature, and there is no cogent material linking the alleged incident to the discharge of the complainant's official duties. 3.3. The learned Amicus Curiae concluded that the prosecution has failed to establish its case beyond a reasonable doubt, and as such, the conviction under Sections 353 and 333 IPC cannot be sustained. Lastly, he submited that the appeal be allowed, the impugned judgment dated 19.12.1995 be quashed and set aside, and the appellants be acquitted. 4. Learned Dy. Govt. Advocate, appearing on behalf of the State, submitted that the submissions made by the counsel for the appellants are without merit. He strongly opposes the appeal and supports the impugned judgment. It is prayed that the appeal be dismissed and the conviction of the appellants be upheld. 5. I have heard the learned Amicus Curiae, learned Dy. Govt. Advocate and perused the material as made available to this Court. 6. He strongly opposes the appeal and supports the impugned judgment. It is prayed that the appeal be dismissed and the conviction of the appellants be upheld. 5. I have heard the learned Amicus Curiae, learned Dy. Govt. Advocate and perused the material as made available to this Court. 6. After a thorough examination of the evidence and a meticulous reappraisal of the submissions made by both parties, this Court finds no discernible flaw or perversity in the trial court's findings of guilt. The prosecution has, beyond a reasonable doubt, established the appellants' involvement in unlawful assembly, trespassing, and the destruction of property. The consistent testimonies of the complainant, Viram Singh (P.W.5), along with corroborating witness statements and documentary evidence, collectively substantiate the paforesaid charges. The trial court's careful scrutiny of the evidence resulted in a well-reasoned conviction, free from material contradiction or infirmity, and as such, this Court affirms the appellants' conviction. 6.1. While the conviction is upheld, it is essential to review the appropriateness of the sentence Imposed. The incident in question occurred in 1990, and the appellants have been involved in criminal proceedings for a prolonged period, enduring significant delay in the adjudication of the matter. The psychological strain borne by the appellants throughout the lengthy legal process cannot be disregarded. While the actions of the appellants are undoubtedly unlawful and warrant condemnation, they appear to stem from a localized familial dispute rather than a manifestation of any entrenched criminal tendencies. 6.2. The appellants' ages at the time of the incident play a crucial role in this Court's approach to sentencing. Hari Babu, who was 21 years old, and Ramesh, aged 45, had no prior criminal history. This case represents their sole instance of criminality, and there is no evidence to suggest they have engaged in any further unlawful activities. The appellants have remained on bail throughout the trial and appeal and have not misused the liberty granted by the Court. Over time, they have demonstrated a reintegration into Society as law-abiding citizens. Despite the seriousness of the offense, their actions do not reflect a consistent pattern of criminal behavior. Considering the passage of time and their apparent rehabilitation, imposing further incarceration would serve no rehabilitative purpose and would only cause undue hardship to their families, who have already endured the consequences of this prolonged legal battle. 6.3. Despite the seriousness of the offense, their actions do not reflect a consistent pattern of criminal behavior. Considering the passage of time and their apparent rehabilitation, imposing further incarceration would serve no rehabilitative purpose and would only cause undue hardship to their families, who have already endured the consequences of this prolonged legal battle. 6.3. While acknowledging the mitigating factors, this Court must emphasize the Importance of upholding the rule of law. The appellants' actions, although understandable within certain emotional contexts, cannot be condoned. Taking the law into one's own hands is a clear breach of societal norms, and such conduct must be censured. This Court cannot overlook the need to reinforce the principle of peaceful dispute resolution. 6.4. In light of the mitigating circumstances, such as the appellants' youth at the time of the incident, their lack of prior criminal history, and the prolonged duration of the legal proceedings, this Court finds it just to reduce the sentence. Following the principles set out in Haripada Das v. State of West Bengal [ (1998) 9 SCC 678 ] and Alister Anthony Pereira v. State of Maharashtra [ (2012) 2 SCC 648 ] , this Court believes that justice would be better served by reducing the substantive sentence to the period already undergone, which amounts to approximately one month of incarceration. 6.5. While the appellants should be acknowledged for their apparent rehabilitation over the years, this Court finds it necessary to issue a clear admonition. The appellants are hereby admonished for their unlawful actions, and they are strongly cautioned to maintain peace and adhere to the rule of law in the future. Any further deviation from lawful conduct will not be tolerated by the judicial system and will invite stricter consequences. 7. For the reasons discussed, the appeal is partly allowed. The judgment of conviction dated 19.12.1995 passed by the learned Special Jude, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocoties) Act Cases, Udaipur in Sessions Case No.114/1991 is affirmed, but the substantive sentence is reduced to the period already undergone. The appellants are admonished for their unlawful conduct and are cautioned to respect the law moving forward. 8. All pending applications are disposed of. 9. The record be returned to the trial court. 10. Ms. Mansi Pipal, learned Amicus Curiae, shall be remunerated by the State Legal Services Authority in accordance with the rules applicable in that regard.