Partly allowed

Sambhu Singh v. State of Rajasthan-State

Rajasthan HC4 Aug 2023CRLA/450/1994

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court examined a criminal appeal against conviction under the SC/ST Act and IPC. It upheld the conviction as the prosecution proved its case beyond reasonable doubt but reduced the sentence to the period already undergone by the appellant.

What did the court decide?

Conviction modified; sentence for Section 3(1)(x) SC/ST Act reduced to period already undergone; bail bonds discharged.

Sambhu Singh Vs State of Rajasthan-State — Caste Atrocities | Rajasthan HC (2023)

¶1

2023:RJ-JD:24847

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶3

S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 450/1994

¶4

Sambhu Singh son of Padam Singh, by caste Rajput, resident of Narwa, District Jodhpur

----Appellant

Versus

State of Rajasthan

----Respondents

For Appellant(s) : None present For Respondent(s) : Mr. Abhishek Purhohit, AGA

¶10

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FARJAND ALI

¶11

Judgment

¶12

Judgment pronounced on : 04/08/2023 Judgment reserved on : 20/07/2023 By the Court :

¶13

The appellant has preferred the instant appeal under Section 374 of the CrPC being aggrieved of the judgment dated 18.08.1994 passed by the learned Special Judge, Scheduled Caste/Schedule Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Cases Court, Jodhpur in Sessions Case No.52/1994, whereby he has been convicted and sentenced as under :-

¶14

Offence for which convicted	Sentence, Fine and Default Sentence
Section 3(1)(x) of the SC/ST Act	6 months' simple imprisonment alongwith a fine of Rs.500/- and in default of payment of fine, 2 months' simple imprisonment
Section 336 IPC	A fine of Rs.150/- and in default of payment of fine, 15 days' simple imprisonment

¶15

Briefly stated, facts relevant and essential for disposal of the

¶16

case are that on 28.03.1994 complainant Peeraram, resident of

[CRLA-450/1994]

2023:RJ-JD:24847

(2 of 7)

Narwa, submitted a written report at the Police Station Soorsagar to the effect that in the morning of that day, his wife came to Police Line, where he was serving as a Sipahi. She told that on the previous night at about 10-11 p.m. Shambhu Singh and Mahendra Singh came to their house in intoxicated condition; hurled caste related abuses and pelted stones on their house, which were still present at the spot. It was also stated in the complaint that previously also on 21.03.1994, the accused committed similar act and on the next day, their relatives apologized for their act. Now they have repeated the same act. Roop Singh also witnessed the incident.

¶21

On the basis of the aforesaid report FIR No.60/1994 was registered and after usual investigation, a charge-sheet came to be submitted against the present appellant and one Mahendra Singh for the offences under Sections 336, 504 IPC and Section 3(1)(x) of the SC/ST Act in the Court of the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate No.3, Jodhpur, from where the case was committed and transferred to the trial court.

¶22

The learned trial court framed charges against the appellant for the offences under Sections 3(1)(x) of the SC/ST Act and Section 336 of the IPC and upon denial of guilt by the accused, commenced the trial. During the course of trial, as many as 11 witnesses were examined and 6 documents were exhibited. Thereafter, an explanation was sought from the accused-appellant under Section 313 Cr.P.C., in which he denied the prosecution

(3 of 7)

[CRLA-450/1994]

2023:RJ-JD:24847

allegations and claimed to be falsely implicated in the case due to previous enmity. Two documents were exhibited in defence. Then, after hearing the learned Public Prosecutor and the learned Defence Counsel and upon meticulous appreciation of the evidence, learned trial Judge convicted and sentenced the appellant in the manner stated above vide judgment dated 18.08.1994, which is under assail before this court in the instant appeal.

¶27

Learned counsel for the appellant is not present to argue the case. A perusal of the file reveals that the appeal filed by coaccused Mahendra Singh being S.B. Criminal Appeal No.514/1994 has already been partly allowed by a co-ordinate Bench vide judgment dated 25.05.2022, whereby while maintaining the conviction, the sentence awarded to the accused was reduced to the period already undergone. In view of the above and looking to the fact that the case pertains to the year 1994 and a significant period has already elapsed, this court deemed it fit to decide the appeal based on the material available on record and after hearing the learned Public Prosecutor.

¶28

The grounds raised in the memo of appeal for assailing the impugned judgment are that the alleged eye-witnesses of the incident Smt. Pukhiya Devi (P.W.3), Smt. Bhanwari (P.W.4) and Roop Singh (P.W.5) are interested witnesses and presence of the alleged eye-witness Indra Singh (P.W.10) is not proved as his name was not mentioned in the FIR; the appellant has been

[CRLA-450/1994]

2023:RJ-JD:24847

(4 of 7)

falsely implicated in the case due to previous enmity; the necessary ingredients to prove the offence under the SC/ST Act are not available; since no one claimed to have received any injury in the incident, the commission of offence under Section 336 of the IPC is not logical.

¶33

Per contra learned Public Prosecutor has vehemently argued that the learned trial court has passed the impugned judgment after apropos appreciation of the evidence available on record and as the prosecution has fully established the guilt of the appellant by producing cogent and clinching evidence, no interference in the impugned judgment is called for in this appeal. However, he does not refute the fact that the sentence of the co-accused has been reduced by co-ordinate Bench.

¶34

I have considered the submissions advanced by learned Public Prosecutor and have gone through the impugned judgment.

¶35

The learned trial court has reached to a finding that based on the statements of the Smt. Pukhiya Devi (P.W.3) and Smt. Bhanwari (P.W.4), which get further corroboration from the testimonies of independent witnesses Roop Singh (P.W.5) and Indra Singh (P.W.10), the prosecution has been able to prove beyond reasonable doubt the occurrence of the incident, in which the accused-appellant and one Mahendra Singh came to the house of the complainant in intoxicated condition and hurled caste related abuses in the night of 27.03.1994. Further from the site

[CRLA-450/1994]

2023:RJ-JD:24847

(5 of 7)

plan (Ex.P/2) and the statements of the witnesses including the Investigating Officers, the fact of pelting stones by them on the house of the complainant is also established. Thus, the learned trial court concluded that the offences under Section 3(1)(x) of the SC/ST Act and Section 336 of the IPC are proved against the appellant and accordingly, he was convicted for the said offences.

¶40

Upon thoughtful consideration, this court is of the opinion that though there are minor discrepancies in the statements of the witnesses, but a careful scrutiny of the same does not give rise to any suspicion over their truthfulness specially when the same is further corroborated by other material available on record. In the considered opinion of this court, the prosecution has been able to prove its case against the appellant beyond reasonable doubt by producing cogent and unimpeachable evidence. The learned trial court has prudently discussed the entire evidence in detail and based upon thorough appreciation of the same has reached to the conclusion of guilt of the appellant. I find no error, irregularity or illegality in the impugned judgment of conviction. Accordingly, the judgment of conviction is maintained.

¶41

As far as the question of quantum of sentence is concerned, it is worthwhile to note that the incident is of the year 1994, in which the appellant hurled abuses and pelted stones in intoxicated condition. However, no one got injured in the incident. The sentence of the co-accused Mahendra Singh has already been reduced to the period already undergone by him. The right to speedy and expeditious trial is one of the most valuable and

[CRLA-450/1994]

2023:RJ-JD:24847

(6 of 7)

cherished rights guaranteed under the Constitution. The appellant has already suffered the agony of protracted trial, spanning over a period of more than 29 years and has been in the corridors of the court for this prolonged period. He has remained incarcerated for some time during trial. The reformative theory of punishment is in vogue in our country and since the appellant is living peacefully since last 29 years as no report contrary to that has been received by this court, thus, it can be assumed that he has been reformed and no fruitful purpose would be served by sending him to jail at this stage as much misery has already been inflicted upon him.

¶46

In view of the discussion made hereinabove, the case of the appellant deserves to be dealt with leniency and in parity with the co-accused Mahendra Singh. The appellant also deserves the benefit of the consistent view taken by this court in this regard. Thus, guided by the judicial pronouncements made by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the cases of Haripada Das Vs. State of West Bangal reported in (1998) 9 SCC 678 and Alister Anthony Pareira vs. State of Maharashtra reported in 2012 2 SCC 648 and considering the facts and circumstances of the case, his criminal antecedents, his status in the society and the fact that he faced financial hardship and had to go through mental agony, this court is of the view that ends of justice would be met, if sentence imposed upon him for the offence under Section 3(1)(x) of the SC/ST Act is reduced to the one already undergone by him.

(7 of 7)

[CRLA-450/1994]

2023:RJ-JD:24847

Accordingly, the judgment of conviction dated 18.08.1994 passed by the learned Special Judge, Scheduled Caste/Schedule Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Cases Court, Jodhpur in Sessions Case No.52/1994 is affirmed but the quantum of sentence awarded by the learned trial court for the offences under Section 3(1)(x) of the SC/ST Act is modified to the extent that the sentence he has undergone till date would be sufficient and justifiable to serve the interest of justice. The appellant is on bail. He need not surrender. His bail bonds are discharged.

¶51

The appeal is allowed in part.

¶52

Pending applications, if any, are disposed of.

¶53

(FARJAND ALI),J

¶54

124-Pramod/-

Sambhu Singh v. State of Rajasthan-State

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sambhu Singh v. State of Rajasthan-State

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kanjee Vs State of Rajasthan

Rassi Bai Vs State of Rajasthan

Ishwar Singh Solanki Vs State of Rajasthan

State of Rajasthan Vs Iqbal and Anr.

Jagdish Sain Vs State of Rajasthan

Javed Shah Vs State of Rajasthan