Partly allowed

Ganpat Ram and Anr. v. State

Rajasthan HC14 Aug 2023CRLA/192/1995

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Rajasthan partly allowed the criminal appeal against conviction under the SC/ST Act. Conviction was affirmed, but the sentence was modified to treat time spent in judicial proceedings as substantive sentence. Bail bonds were discharged.

What did the court decide?

Conviction maintained; sentence modified to time already undergone; bail bonds discharged; no surrender required.

Ganpat Ram and Anr. Vs State — Caste Atrocities | Rajasthan HC (2023)

¶1

[2023:RJ-JD:25718]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶3

S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 192/1995

¶4

Ganpat Ram S/o Koda Ram, B/c Jat R/o Lalgarh

¶5

Girdhari S/o Ganpat Ram B/c Jat, R/o Lalgarh, District Sri Ganganagar.

¶6

----Appellant

¶7

Versus

¶8

The State of Rajasthan

¶9

----Respondent

¶10

For Appellant(s)	: Mr. S.K. Verma
For Respondent(s)	: Mr. Mukhtiyar Khan,PP

¶11

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FARJAND ALI

¶12

Order

¶13

DATE OF ORDER ::: 14/08/2023 BY THE COURT:-

¶14

By way of filing the instant Criminal Appeal challenge has been made to the judgment dated 05.05.1995 passed by the learned Special Judge SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities Act) Cases, Sri Ganganagar in Sessions Case No.114/1994 whereby, the learned trial Judge convicted the accused-appellants for the offence under Sections 3 (i)(v) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act and sentenced to undergo six months rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs.500/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo one month’s simple imprisonment.

¶15

Heard learned counsel for the appellants as well as learned Public Prosecutor for the State and have gone through the judgment impugned as well as record of the case.

[2023:RJ-JD:25718]

[CRLA-192/1995]

(2 of 4)

After having gone through and carefully examined the evidence brought on record it is revealing that on 12.08.1992, victim Chimna Ram filed a complaint (Ex.P/3) alleging inter alia that an agricultural land ad-measuring 30 bighas was allotted to him by the Government Of Rajasthan for the purpose to maintain his family since he belongs to the weaker section of Society; the said land was in his possession for last 20 years. It is also alleged that after 7-8 years of the allotment of the land, the adjacent land was allotted to the Girdhari son of Ganpat Ram, the then Sarpanch as the said land was a barren land and having sand dunes, therefore, the appellants usually tried to trespass and grab his land. It is also alleged that on 09.08.1992 when his wife Meera along with children were working in their agricultural field, the appellants Ganpat Ram and Girdhari made a trespass into their land and used abusive language towards his wife indicating her caste and whereafter the efforts were made to thrash up them but they somehow made their escape good. It is further emanating from the record that the FIR was lodged after some time when the complainant approached to the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Suratgarh and moved a complaint under Section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C. Upon which FIR No.276/92 at the Police Station Suratgarh under Sections 447, 427, 440, 467, 468, 471 of the IPC and under Section 3 (iv)(v) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act was registered and investigation commenced wherein a negative final report was submitted and whereafter; upon his protest, cognizance was taken and the process was issued. Upon the appearance of the accused, the

[2023:RJ-JD:25718]

[CRLA-192/1995]

(3 of 4)

matter was committed to the trial Court wherein as many as six witnesses were examined on behalf of the prosecution and accused-appellants were examined under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. and two witnesses were produced in support of defence. After meticulous examination of the evidence brought on record, the learned trial Court convicted the accused-appellants and passed the order of sentence as stated above.

¶24

At the outset the learned counsel Shri Rakesh Matoria, representing the appellants submitted that he does not wish to press the finding of guilt and judgment of conviction but seeks benevolence on the point of sentence.

¶25

I have minutely gone through the impugned judgment as well as record of the case and further made appreciation of the evidence and prima facie finds no case for interference by this Court with regard to finding of guilt. Thus, the judgment of conviction passed by the Court below is affirmed and the appeal to this extent is dismissed.

¶26

So far as the question regarding order of sentence is concerned, it is emanating from the record that the alleged incident took place on 09.08.1992; the parties are the residents of same vicinity; accused-appellants have not repeated the offence. It is reflecting that the land of both the parties are adjacent thus adopting a reformative approach and considering the fact that appellant Ganpat Ram was aged 60 years at the time of incident and appellant Girdhari was of 30 years of age and now after lapse of such a long period sending them back to jail would

(4 of 4)

[2023:RJ-JD:25718]

[CRLA-192/1995]

not be justifiable thus, looking to the circumstances of the case, the circumstances of the appellants, the period already undergone by them in judicial proceeding, taking into account the fact that it was their first offence and they have no criminal antecedent except the present one.

¶31

In the peculiar circumstances of the case, I am the opinion that the sentence undergone by them should be treated as substantive sentence for the offences for which they are convicted. Thus, the appeal deserves to be allowed to the extent of point of sentence.

¶32

Accordingly the appeal is partly allowed. The judgment of conviction dated 05.05.1995 passed by the Special Judge SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities Act) Cases, Sri Ganganagar in Sessions Case No.114/1994 is maintained and the order of sentence is modified to the period already undergone by the appellants and the same shall be treated as sentence imposed upon them for the charge proved against them. They are on bail. Their bail bonds are discharged, they need not to surrender.

¶33

Record of the courts below be sent back.

¶34

(FARJAND ALI),J

¶35

62-Mamta/-

Ganpat Ram and Anr. v. State

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ganpat Ram and Anr. v. State

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sagar Mal Vs State

Mahendra Kumar Vs State of Rajasthan

Vikram @ Vicky Vs State of Rajasthan

Indra Raj Vs State

Kapil Bhati Vs State of Rajasthan

Shyam Lal Vs State