[2025:RJ-JD:53126]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 137/1997 Shamboo Singh S/o Khuman Singh Rajput, R/o Jorawar Singh Ka Kheda, Post Rajiyawas, Via Kankroli, District Rajsamand ----Appellant Versus State of Rajasthan ----Respondent For Appellant(s) : Mr. Manish Sisodia, Senior Advocate, assisted by Mr Harshvardhan Singh Rathore For Respondent(s) : Mr. Rajesh Bhati, AGA Mr. Ravindra Singh, AGA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FARJAND ALI

Judgment

Judgment reserved on : 05/12/2025 Judgment pronounced on : 08/12/2025

1. By way of filing the instant Criminal Appeal under Section 374 of the CrPC, challenge has been made to the judgment dated 06.03.1997 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Rajsamand in Sessions Case No.125/1993, whereby the learned trial court convicted and sentenced the appellant as under :-

Offence for which convicted Sentence awarded Section 326 IPC 4 years’ R.I. alongwith a fine of Rs.2000/- and default of payment of fine, further to undergo 6 months’ R.I.

Section 323 IPC 3 months’ S.I

2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the appellant alongwith co-accused Rama S/o Dewa Gujar were tried for offences under Sections 307, 326, 323 IPC on basis of FIR 117/1993 lodged by complainant Gorawardhan singh at Police Station Nathdwara being EX.P/2. It was alleged in the FIR that the accused gave beating to Doongarsingh, the father of the complainant, on account of enemity between co-accused Rama and one Tejaram. The injury is said to have resulted in cutting off of fingers of Doongarsingh. A cross case was also registered as the accused received 11 Injuries including incised grevious injury on hand and simple injuries on head and shoulders.

3. The appellant was tried as aforesaid alongwith Rama and after trial co-accused Rama was acquitted and the appellant was convicted and sentenced as aforesaid. Being aggrieved of the same, the appellant has preferred the instant appeal.

4. After arguing on merits to some extent, learned counsel for the appellant does not wish to press the present appeal in respect of the judgment of conviction passed by the learned trial court and preferred to make submissions on the point of sentence only. He submits that the dispute erupted on a very trivial issue and in the heat of the moment, the appellant inflicted injury to the victim. The accused party also received injuries in the incident. The incident is of the year 1993. The petitioner is 68 years old person. There is no criminal antecedent of the present appellant. It was the first criminal case registered against him. No adverse remark has been passed over his conduct in the impugned judgment. He faced trial for 4 years and the present appeal is pending for last 28 years. The appellant has languished for some time in jail.

Hence, it is prayed that taking into account the aforesaid facts, a lenient view may be taken on the point of sentence awarded to the appellant.

5. Learned public prosecutor though opposed the submissions made on behalf of the appellant but does not refute the fact that it was the first criminal case registered against him and he had no criminal antecedents as well as the fact that he has remained behind the bars for some time.

6. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and the learned Public prosecutor and perused the record and other material available on the record.

7. Since the appeal against conviction is not pressed and after perusing the record, nothing is noticed which requires interference in the finding of guilt reached by learned trial court, this court does not wish to interfere in the judgment of conviction.

Accordingly, the judgment of conviction is maintained.

8. As far as the question of quantum of sentence is concerned, this Court finds substance in the submissions advanced on behalf of the appellant. The incident in question occurred in the year 1993, more than 32 years ago. The material on record shows that the dispute flared up suddenly on a trivial issue and there was no