Chhitar Vs State

By way of filing this present S.B. Criminal Appeal No.272/1996 under Section 374 of Cr.P.C., the accused-appellant is assailing the judgment dated 05.04.1996 passed by learned Special Judge, Schedule Caste/Schedule Tribe(Prevention of Atrocities) Act Cases Court, Jaipur whereby the accused-appellant was convicted under Section 3(1)(5) of SC/ST Act 1989, Sections

¶14

427 and 447 of IPC as under:-

¶15

U/s 3(1)(5) of SC/ST Act- To undergo 6 months RI and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/-, in default of payment of fine, to further undergo one month RI.

¶16

U/s 427 IPC- To undergo 3 months RI and to pay a fine of Rs.500/-, in default of payment of fine, to further undergo 15 days RI.

¶17

U/s 447 IPC- To undergo 3 months RI and to pay a fine of Rs.200/-, in default of payment of fine, to further undergo 15 days RI.

[2026:RJ-JP:7300]

[CRLA-272/1996]

(2 of 4)

All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently and the period spent in custody was to be adjusted in the original imprisonment.

¶22

During the course of hearing, learned counsel for the accused-appellant submits that, as per the prosecution story, on 10.07.1994, the complainant Shri Roop Narain Khatik, submitted a report before the SHO Police Station Phagi, District Jaipur, alleging, inter alia, that the complainants are the members of Schedule Caste and had purchased land bearing Khasra No.896/3 and are in possession of that land since long. On 01.07.1994 at about 3.00 am, accused-appellant Chittar ploughed and cultivated about 3 bighas of the said land after destroying the mud wall(Dol). 4. On the basis of aforesaid complaint, an FIR was lodged and, after investigation a charge-sheet under Sections 447 and 427 of IPC and Section 3(1)(5) of the SC/ST Act, 1989 was submitted. Cognizance for the aforesaid offences was taken, charges were framed accordingly and upon denial of guilt by the accusedappellant, trial was commenced.

¶23

During the course of trial, nine witnesses were examined and some documents were exhibited by the prosecution, and the accused-appellant was thereafter examined under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., wherein he denied the evidence produced against him and examined two witnesses in his defence. Upon conclusion of the trial, the accused-appellant was convicted and sentenced for the aforesaid offences, vide judgment dated 05.04.1996 as aforesaid. 6. Learned counsel for the accused-appellant submits that the incident in the present case relates to the year 1994 and accused-

[2026:RJ-JP:7300]

[CRLA-272/1996]

(3 of 4)

appellant does not have any criminal antecedents, he has been falsely implicated in the present case, there is no trustworthy evidence available on record indicating his guilt in the commission of the alleged crime. Learned counsel further submits that sentence awarded to the accused-appellant was suspended by this Court vide order dated 26.04.1996 in S.B. Criminal Misc.(Bail) Application No.333/96.

¶28

Learned counsel further submits that the accused-appellant is now above 80 years of age, has remained in police custody for some time and is facing agony for a long protracted trial and therefore, the sentence awarded to him may be substituted with the sentence already undergone by him. He submits that the accused-appellant is from very poor family and therefore a lenient view may be taken.

¶29

Per contra, Learned Public Prosecutor submits that there is no illegality or infirmity in the impugned judgement and therefore the same do not call for any interference by this Court. However, he does not refute the fact that the accused-appellant is above 80 years of age, there is no criminal antecedent against him and has remained in police custody for some time.

¶30

Heard the learned counsels for both the parties and perused the material available on record. 10. Since the appeal against conviction has not been pressed and upon perusing the material available on record, no infirmity is found warranting interference with the trial Court’s finding of guilt, this Court does not want to interfere in the judgment of conviction. Accordingly, the judgment of conviction is maintained.

(4 of 4)

[2026:RJ-JP:7300]

[CRLA-272/1996]

As far as the question of sentence is concerned, the accusedappellant remained in police custody for some time and is facing the rigour for last 30 years. Considering that the case is pending since 1994 and the maximum sentence awarded is of six months. Thus, in the facts and circumstances of the present case, as well as the fact that, the accused-appellant has faced financial hardship and had to go through mental agony. Moreover, guided by the principles laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Haripada Das vs State of W.B. & Anr; (1998) 9 SCC 678, while maintaining the conviction of the appellant for the alleged offence, this court deems it appropriate to reduce the substantive sentence to the period already undergone by the appellant. The amount of fine imposed by the learned Trial Court is also reduced to Rs. 1000/- and one month time is hereby granted to deposit the fine amount before the learned Trial Court. In default of payment of fine, the accused-appellant shall undergo one month simple imprisonment.

¶35

Accused-appellant is on bail, he need not surrender. His bail bonds stands discharged.

¶36

Accordingly, S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 272/1996 is partly allowed.

¶37

All pending application(s), if any, stand disposed of.

¶38

Record of the Trial Court be sent back forthwith.

¶39

(SANGEETA SHARMA),J

¶40

HEENA/04

Chhitar v. State

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Chhitar v. State

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Hanuman Vs State

Khambha Ram Vs State of Raj.

Dhanpal Vs State

Babu Lal Vs State

Harish Sharma S/O Shri Tejram Sharma Vs State of Rajasthan

Madan Singh and Anr. Vs State of Rajasthan and Anr.