The court affirmed the conviction while modifying the sentence based on mitigating factors, emphasizing the need for reformative justice in sentencing after extensive delay in proceedings.

ORDER :

FARJAND ALI, J.

1. The instant criminal appeal under Section 374 (2) of the CrPC has been preferred assailing the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 29.04.1995, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Sri Ganganagar in Sessions Case No.64/1994.

2. The appeal was filed by three appellants, who were convicted by the trial court, however, the appellant No.2 Hakam Singh and the appellant No.3 Sita Singh @ Sarjeet Singh have passed away and therefore, this court vide order dated 13.05.2025 has dismissed the appeal as abated to their extent. Thus, the appeal is being adjudicated by the instant judgment only for the appellant No.1 Balbir Singh @ Vira Singh, who has been convicted and sentenced by the impugned judgment, as under :-

3. None appears on behalf of the appellant to argue the matter Looking to the fact that the case is very old, in the interest of justice, Ms. Nikita Vaishnav, Advocate, is appointed as Amicus Curiae to assist the Court on behalf of the appellant under the Free Legal Aid Scheme of the Rajasthan State Legal Services Authority (RSLSA). Her fee shall be paid by the RSLSA in accordance with its rules. With her valuable assistance, the Court proceeded to adjudicate the appeal.

4. Briefly stated, the prosecution case is that the incident occurred on 08.12.1991 in relation to a dispute over possession of agricultural land. According to the prosecution, the complainant party was in possession of the land in question, when the accused persons trespassed upon it and objected to such possession. An altercation ensued which soon escalated into a physical assault. It was alleged that during the course of the incident, the accused persons assaulted the complainant and other members of his party with lathis and sharp-edged weapons. The specific role attributed to Balbir Singh @ Vira Singh was that he inflicted a blow with a sharp-edged weapon on the head of the injured, which, as per medical opinion, was dangerous to life.

5. On the basis of the written report submitted by the complainant, FIR No.273/1991 was registered at the Police Station Sadulshahar for offences under Sections 307 , 324, 323, 147, 149 and 447 of the IPC . The investigation was conducted in the usual course, during which site inspection was carried out and site plan was prepared, blood-stained soil and other articles were seized and the accused were arrested. The injured persons were medically examined, and their injury reports were prepared. Upon completion of investigation, a charge-sheet was filed against the accused persons before the competent court.

6. During trial, the prosecution examined 9 witnesses and prodcued 34 exhbits. After completion of prosecution evidence, the statements of the accused were recorded under Section 313 CrPC, wherein they denied the allegations and claimed false implication on account of land dispute. No defence evidence was adduced. Upon appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence on record, the learned Sessions Judge found the prosecution case proved beyond reasonable doubt and convicted the accused for the offences under Sections 447 , 307 and 324 IPC , awarding the sentences as detailed hereinabove.

7. Learned counsel for the appellant (Amicus Curiae) assailed the impugned judgment both on the question of conviction as well as on the quantum of sentence. On the point of conviction, it was submitted that the learned trial