In an appeal against conviction and sentence for caste-based offences, the High Court reduced the term of imprisonment to the period already undergone by the appellant and waived the imposed fine while maintaining the conviction.
Sentence reduced to period already undergone; fines waived; appellant released on bail with bonds discharged.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
[2024:RJ-JD:22026]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 561/1995
Babu Singh S/o Bheekh Singh, By Caste Rajput, R/o Ward No.11, Suratgarh, District Sriganganagar.
----Appellant
Versus
State Of Rajasthan
----Respondent
| For Appellant(s) | : Mr. R.S. Gill |
|---|---|
| For Respondent(s) | : Mr. Mukesh Trivedi,PP |
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR GARG
Order
15/05/2024
Instant criminal appeal has been filed by the appellant against the judgment dated 12.12.1995 passed by learned Special Judge Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities), Sriganganagar, in Sessions Case No.05/1995 by which the learned Judge convicted and sentenced the appellant as under :
| S.No. | Offence | Sentence Fine |
Sentence in default of fine |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. | 504 IPC | One month’s S.I. Rs.100/- |
Seven days’ S.I. |
| 2. | 3(1)(X) SC/ST Act |
Six months’ R.I. Rs.500/- |
One month’s S.I. |
Both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently.
Brief facts of the case are that on 08.09.1994 complainant Prithvi Raj lodged a written report at Police Station Suratgarh to the effect that on that day i.e. on 08.09.1994 when he went to his Office then at about 1.00 p.m. his neighbour Babu Singh (present appellant) came to his house and hurled caste oriented abuses at
[2024:RJ-JD:22026]
[CRLA-561/1995]
(2 of 3)
his wife and children so also threatened them to vacate the premises. In the evening at about 6.00 P.M. when he returned from his Office, the appellant again came to his house and hurled caste oriented abuses at them and also threatened them to vacate the premises. On this report, Police registered a case against the accused-appellant and started investigation.
On completion of investigation, police filed challan against the accused-appellant. Thereafter, the charges for offence under Section 504 IPC and Section 3(1)(X) of SC/ST Act were framed by the trial court against the accused-appellant, who pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
During the course of trial, the prosecution examined as many as eight witnesses in support of its case and also exhibited some documents. Thereafter, statement of the accused appellant was recorded under section 313 Cr.P.C.
Upon conclusion of the trial, the learned trial court vide impugned judgment dated 12.12.1995 convicted and sentenced the accused-appellant for the offences as aforesaid. Hence, this criminal appeal.
At the threshold, learned counsel for the accused-appellant submits that he does not challenge the finding of conviction but since the occurrence is related to the year 1994 and the accused appellant has so far suffered a sentence of about three days, out of total sentence of six months’ R.I., therefore, it is prayed that the sentence awarded to the appellant for the aforesaid offences may be reduced to the period already undergone by him.
Learned Public Prosecutor opposed the submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellant. The learned PP submitted
[2024:RJ-JD:22026]
[CRLA-561/1995]
(3 of 3)
that there is neither any occasion to interfere with the sentence awarded to the accused appellant nor any compassion or sympathy is called for in the said case.
I have perused the evidence of the prosecution as well as defence and the judgment passed by the trial court regarding conviction of the accused-appellant.
Undisputedly, the occurrence relates back to year 1994 and, the appellant has so far undergone a period of three days incarceration, out of total sentence of six months’ R.I., and has also suffered the mental agony and trauma of protracted trial. Thus, looking to the over-all circumstances and the facts that the appellant has remained behind the bars for a considerable time, it will be just and proper if the sentence awarded by the trial court for offence under Section 504 IPC and Section 3(1)(X) of SC/ST Act is reduced to the period already undergone by the appellant.
Accordingly, the appeal is partly allowed. While maintaining the appellant’s conviction for offence under Section 504 IPC and Section 3(1)(X) SC/ST Act, the sentence awarded to him for the said offences is hereby reduced to the period already undergone. The fine amount imposed for offences under Section 504 IPC and Section 3(1)(X) of SC Act is hereby waived. The appellant is on bail. He need not surrender. His bail bonds stand discharged.
The record of the trial court be sent back forthwith.
Record, if received, be sent back forthwith.
(MANOJ KUMAR GARG),J
228-MS/-
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the sentence of imprisonment and fine awarded by the trial court should be reduced given the appellant has already undergone a portion of the sentence.
Whether the appellant should be released on bail without further surrender.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Babu Singh
State Of Rajasthan
Manoj Kumar Garg
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
