[2025:RJ-JD:54808]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 498/1995 Sita Ram, aged about 24 years, s/o Shri Heera, by caste Dhakar, resident of Sarsiya Charnan, Dist. Bhilwara.

----Appellant Versus The State of Rajasthan ----Respondent For Appellant(s) : Mr. Rajiv Bishnoi For Respondent(s) : Mr. Rajesh Bhati, AGA Mr. Ravindra Singh HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FARJAND ALI

Order

DATE OF CONCLUSION OF ARGUMENTS : 08/12/2025 DATE ON WHICH JUDGMENT IS RESERVED : 08/12/2025 FULL JUDGMENTOR OPERATIVE PART : Full Order DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 16/01/2026 BY THE COURT:-

1. The instant criminal appeal has been preferred by the appellant, being aggrieved by the judgment dated 08.11.1995 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Bhilwara (Camp Shahpura) in Sessions Case No.107/1992, whereby the appellant was convicted for the offence punishable under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years, along with a fine of Rs.1,000/-, and in default of payment thereof, to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months.

2. Bereft of unnecessary elaboration, the facts essential for the adjudication of the present appeal are that the incident occurred on 25.12.1991 in the early hours of the morning. An oral report was lodged on 27.12.1991 by Hajari at Police Station Pander, alleging that on a trivial issue, the appellant Sita Ram inflicted two stick blows on the head of Chhotu, the brother of the complainant. Both the appellant and the injured belong to the same village, a fact which assumes relevance while moulding the relief on the question of sentence. Upon registration of the case initially under Sections 147, 341 and 323 IPC, investigation ensued, culminating in the filing of a charge-sheet for the offences under Sections 307, 341 and 323 IPC.

2.1. The appellant was put to trial for the offences under Sections 307 and 323 IPC. During the course of trial, the prosecution examined eleven witnesses. Upon being examined under Section 313 CrPC, the appellant denied the allegations and claimed false implication. After hearing the learned Public Prosecutor and learned defence counsel, and upon appreciation of the evidence, the learned trial Court convicted the appellant under Section 307 IPC vide judgment dated 08.11.1995, which is the subject matter of the present appeal.

3. At the very threshold of hearing, learned counsel appearing for the appellant, with commendable candour and professional fairness, submitted that the appellant does not assail the finding of guilt and conviction recorded by the learned trial Court and confines the challenge exclusively to the quantum of sentence. It was urged that the occurrence pertains to the year 1991, and that the appellant was of a young and impressionable age at the time of the incident. Learned counsel further submitted that the appellant has endured the ordeal of a protracted criminal trial and appellate proceedings for over thirty-four years, thereby suffering considerable mental, social, and financial distress.

3.1. It was further brought to the notice of the Court that the maximum sentence awarded is three years’ rigorous imprisonment, and that the appellant has already remained in judicial custody during the periods 31.12.1991 to 15.02.1992 and 08.11.1995 to 22.11.1995. It was contended that remanding the appellant to prison after such an extraordinary lapse of time would not serve any meaningful penological purpose and would militate against the principles of reformative and restorative justice.

4. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor supported the judgment of conviction on merits, though he did not dispute the fact that the appellant has already undergone a part of the sentence.

5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties at considerable length and bestowed its anxious, thoughtful, and judicious consideration upon the impugned judgment and the material available on record.

5.1. Since the finding of convicti