Amratlal S/O Shri Buddhram Vs State of Rajasthan — Rajasthan HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

Amratlal S/O Shri Buddhram Vs State of Rajasthan — Rajasthan HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Revision petition rejected as not maintainable; liberty granted to the petitioner to file an appeal under Section 14-A of the SC/ST Act; benefit of exemption under Section 14 of the Limitation Act; Office directed to return certified copies and Vakalatnama to the petitioner's counsel.

Issue for consideration

Maintainability: whether the proper remedy against the judgment dated 11.11.2024 of the Special Judge of SC/ST Cases is an appeal under Section 14-A of the SC/ST Act rather than the present revision petition. +1 more

Court's answer

An appeal under Section 14-A of the SC/ST Act is maintainable against the impugned judgment dated 11.11.2024 passed by the Special Judge of SC/ST Cases.

Ratio / Principle

Consequently, the revision petition is not maintainable and is rejected on that count alone, with liberty to the petitioner to file an appeal under Section 14-A of the SC/ST Act.

Key takeaways

The petitioner is entitled to the benefit of exemption under Section 14 of the Limitation Act.ratio¶27

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Rajasthan High Court (Jaipur Bench), S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 528/2025, decided 28/10/2025 (Anoop Kumar Dhand, J.). The petitioner sought enhancement of the sentence awarded by the impugned judgment dated 11.11.2024 of the Special Judge of SC/ST Cases, whereby the accused-respondents, convicted for offences under Sections 147, 323, 325 & 308 read with Section 149 of IPC and Section 3(2)(va) of SC/ST (POA) Act, 1989, had received a sentence of only two years. In the Court's opinion, an appeal under Section 14-A of the SC/ST Act is maintainable against that judgment; accordingly, the revision petition is not maintainable and is rejected on that count alone, with liberty to the petitioner to file an appeal under Section 14-A of the SC/ST Act, and with entitlement to exemption under Section 14 of the Limitation Act. The Office was directed to return certified copies and Vakalatnama, retaining photocopies on record.

[2025:RJ-JP:43193]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 528/2025

Amratlal S/o Shri Buddhram, Aged About 34 Years, Resident Of Sultanpur P.s. Wazirpur District Sawai Madhopur (Rajasthan)

----Petitioner

Versus

State Of Rajasthan, Through Public Prosecutor

Bharosilal S/o Parsadi, Aged About 48 Years, Resident Of Khatipura P.s. Wazirpur

Ramkishore S/o Bharosi, Aged About 25 Years, Resident Of Khatipura P.s. Wazirpur

Beerbal S/o Mangal, Aged About 50 Years, Resident Of Khatipura P.s. Wazirpur

Suresh S/o Ramswaroop, Aged About 30 Years, Resident Of Khatipura P.s. Wazirpur

Girraj S/o Harphool, Aged About 28 Years, Resident Of Khatipura P.s. Wazirpur

Kirodilal S/o Parsadi, Aged About 40 Years, Resident Of Khatipura P.s. Wazirpur

Balram S/o Ramjilal, Aged About 22 Years, Resident Of Khatipura P.s. Wazirpur

----Respondents

For Petitioner(s)	: Mr.Satish Kumar
For Respondent(s)	: Mr.Amit Kumar Gupta,Dy.GA-cum-PP

JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND

Order

28/10/2025

By way of filing this revision petition, the petitioner is seeking prayer for enhancement of the sentence awarded to the accused-respondents vide impugned judgment dated 11.11.2024. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that on a report filed by the petitioner, the accused-respondents faced trial and

[2025:RJ-JP:43193]

[CRLR-528/2025]

(2 of 2)

were found guilty for the offences punishable under Sections 147, 323, 325 & 308 read with Section 149 of IPC and Section 3(2)(va) of SC/ST (POA) Act, 1989, but they have been awarded a lesser sentence. Counsel submits that under Section 3(2)(va) of the of SC/ST Act, the maximum sentence prescribed is 7 years, but an inadequate sentence of only 2 years has been awarded to the accused-respondents, hence, the instant petition has been preferred for enhancement of their sentence.

In the considered opinion of this Court, the appeal under Section 14-A of the of SC/ST Act is maintainable against the impugned judgment dated 11.11.2024 passed by the Special Judge of SC/ST Cases, hence, this revision petition is not maintainable and on this count alone, the same is rejected granting liberty to the petitioner to file an appeal under Section 14-A of the SC/ST Act.

Office is directed to return the certified copies and Vakalatnama to the counsel for the petitioner, after retaining the photocopies of the same on the record.

Needless to observe that the petitioner would be entitled to get the benefit of exemption under Section 14 of the Limitation Act.

(ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J

Aayush Sharma /132