[2026:RJ-JD:4392]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 304/1997

1. Baliya alias Balwant Singh son of Binjraj Singh

2. Kamal Singh son of Khet Singh Both residents of Minya Ka Tala, District Barmer ----Appellant Versus State of Rajasthan ----Respondent For Appellant(s) : Ms. Yogita Mohnani For Respondent(s) : Mr. N.S. Chandawat, DyGA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FARJAND ALI

Judgment

22/01/2026

1. The instant criminal appeal under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed by the appellants being aggrieved by the judgment dated 02.06.1997 passed by the Court of Special Judge (SC/ST Act), District & Sessions Court, Balotra, whereby the appellant Baliya @ Balwant Singh was convicted for the offences under Sections 324 IPC, 323/34 IPC and Section 3(1) (x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, whereas the appellant Kamal Singh was convicted for the offences under Sections 324/34 IPC, 323 IPC and Section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. Both the appellants were sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment of six months for the offence under Section

324 IPC / 324/34 IPC, simple imprisonment of three months for the offence under Section 323 IPC / 323/34 IPC, and simple imprisonment of six months along with fine of Rs.500/- each for the offence under Section 3(1)(x) of the SC/ST Act, with default stipulation, with all the sentences directed to run concurrently.

2. Briefly stated, the facts giving rise to the present appeal are that on the intervening night of 24/25.10.1995, the complainant alleged that while he was returning towards his village after attending agricultural work, he was intercepted by the appellants and assaulted with a lathi and a kulhadi, causing injuries on his person. On the basis of the report lodged, investigation was conducted and after completion thereof, charge-sheet was filed. The trial court, upon appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence, found the prosecution case proved and convicted and sentenced the appellants as aforesaid.

3. Learned counsel for the appellants initially addressed the Court on the question of conviction also; however, upon some deliberation, he did not press the appeal on merits of conviction and confined his submissions only to the prayer for reduction of sentence. Learned counsel submitted that at the time of the incident, appellant Baliya @ Balwant Singh was about 23 years of age and appellant Kamal Singh was about 22 years of age. As of today, both the appellants are in their early fifties, having crossed approximately 53 years and 52 years of age respectively. It was urged that the appellants were young at the time of occurrence, belonged to a poor rural background, and were the sole bread earners of their respective families. It was further contended that the appellants have suffered immense mental agony, social stigma and financial hardship on account of protracted criminal proceedings spanning nearly three decades. The appellants had remained in incarceration for about 25 days during investigation/trial. Learned counsel submitted that the appellants are not habitual offenders, have no prior criminal antecedents and, even after the present incident, no other criminal case has been registered against them. It was also urged that with advancing age, the appellants are now suffering from age-related ailments and that sending them back to jail after about thirty years would serve no fruitful purpose and would rather be counter-productive.

4. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor opposed the prayer for reduction of sentence and submitted that the offences relate to an assault coupled with an offence under the SC/ST Act and, therefore, the sentence awarded by the trial court does not call for any leniency.

5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have carefully considered the submissions made. I have also minutely perused the record of the ca