[2026:RJ-JD:2372]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 60/1996 Hari Singh S/o Chottu Ram R/o Ward No.2, Suratgarh District Sri Ganganagar ----Appellant Versus State Of Rajasthan ----Respondent For Appellant(s) : Mr. Shankar Dayal For Respondent(s) : Mr. Surendra Bishnoi, AGA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FARJAND ALI

Order

07/01/2026

1. This criminal appeal has been instituted assailing the judgment of conviction dated 24.11.1995 and order of sentence dated 01.12.1995 rendered by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge No.2, Sri Ganganagar, in Sessions Case No.99/1995, whereby the appellant was

2. I have heard elaborate and detailed submissions advanced on behalf of the appellant as well as the State, and proceeded to undertake a comprehensive re-examination of the entire record.

3. At the very threshold of hearing, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant, with commendable candour and professional fairness, submitted that the appellant does not assail the findings of guilt and conviction recorded by the learned trial Court. The challenge in the present appeal, it was urged, is confined exclusively to the quantum of sentence imposed. It was contended that the occurrence in question traces its genesis to the year 1994, and that the appeal has remained pending since 1996, thereby lingering before the Court for around three decades. Learned counsel further submitted that the appellant has already undergone approximately around four months of incarceration, and that during the long interregnum they have conducted themselves as law-abiding citizens. It was urged that to remand the appellant back to prison after such an extraordinary lapse of time would serve no fruitful or constructive purpose and would run counter to the settled principles of reformative and rehabilitative justice. Emphasis was also laid on the fact that the appellants have not been involved in any subsequent criminal activity, and therefore a lenient, humane, and reform-oriented approach merits consideration.

3. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the State opposed the appeal on the question of sentence and supported the judgment and order passed by the learned trial Court, contending that the nature and gravity of the offences do not warrant any indulgence by this Court.

4. This Court has heard learned counsel for the parties at considerable length and has bestowed its anxious, thoughtful, and judicious consideration upon the impugned judgment, the material available on record, and the rival submissions advanced at the Bar. 5. Upon an overall, holistic, and circumspect appreciation of the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court finds substantial merit in the submissions canvassed on behalf of the appellants insofar as the question of sentence is concerned. It is beyond cavil that the incident occurred around thirty-two years ago, and the appeal itself has meandered through the corridors of justice for an inordinately long duration. The appellants have already suffered incarceration for about four months, and there is not even a whisper of material on record to suggest that they have repeated any offence or abused the concession of liberty during the pendency of the appeal. At the time of the occurrence, the appellants were of a young and impressionable age; today, however, they stand at the twilight of their lives, weighed down by advancing age, economic hardship, and social obligations. To incarcerate them afresh after such a prolonged lapse of time would neither subserve the ends of justice nor advance the object of penology; rather, it would amount to a rigid, mechanical, and anachronistic application of punishment, wholly divorced from the lived realities of human existence. Sentencing, it must be remembered, is not an exercise in vengeance; its true purpose lies in striking a delicate balance between deterrence, reformation, and societal harmony. In the peculiar and compelling facts of the present