[2025:RJ-JP:36783]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 305/1996 Hariom son of Shri Kishan Lal R/o Railway Colony, Sawai Madhopur ----Appellant Versus State of Rajasthan ----Respondent For Appellant(s) : Mr. RP Garg For Respondent(s) : Mr. Rajendra Singh Shekhawat, PP Mr. Sudesh Kumar Saini, PP HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BALJINDER SINGH SANDHU

Order

09/09/2025

1. The instant appeal has been preferred against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 26.04.1996 passed by the Special Judge, SC/ST Prevention of Cases, Sawai Madhopur in Sessions Case No.11/95(3/96), whereby appellant was convicted under Section 326 IPC for three years of rigorous imprisonment (RI) with fine of Rs.1,000/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo six months R.I.

2. Briefly stated facts of the case are that victim-Aryadev was employed as a Compounder Dresser at the Railway Hospital, Sawai Madhopur. On 12.08.1994, at about 11:00 o’clock, the accused Hariom, allegedly being aggrieved by the fact that he was defending the Doctor, took out a razor and inflicted a blow on the right side of the complainant’s face. It is stated that Durgaprasad Sharma, Bhagwan Das, Ghanshyam, and Ramswaroop witnessed the incident. The injured was admitted to the hospital, and based on his statement, an FIR was registered for offences under Sections 353, 332, 333, and 336 of the Indian Penal Code. The medical examination showed an incised wound on the right cheek, caused by a sharp-edged weapon and of a serious nature.

3. After completion of investigation, a challan was filed under Sections 353, 333 and 326 IPC against the accused-appellant. The matter was thereafter committed to the Sessions Court, Sawai Madhopur where the accused was formally charged under Section 333 IPC, but he denied the offence and sought trial. The prosecution, in support of its case, examined as many as nine witnesses and exhibited sixteen documents. The statement of the accused was recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. In his explanation, the accused denied the allegations and asserted that he has been falsely implicated by the complainant, who, being his colleague in the Railways, harbours animosity against him.

4. Learned Trial Judge after hearing counsel for the parties and upon meticulous appreciation of the evidence on record, held that the complainant was not performing any public duty at the time of the incident. Accordingly, the Court did not find the charge under Section 333 IPC established and instead convicted the accused- appellant for the offence under Section 326 IPC. The accused was sentenced to undergo three years’ rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs.1,000/-, and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo six months’ rigorous imprisonment.

5. Learned counsel representing the accused-appellant, at the outset, submitted that he does not dispute the finding of the guilt and judgment of conviction passed by the learned trial court. To that extent, he does not challenge the order of conviction. However, his submission is confined to an alternative prayer for reduction of the sentence to the period already undergone by the appellant. He further submitted that the present case pertains to the year 1994 and the appellant has already undergone the agony of protracted legal proceedings for more than 30 years. It was pointed out that at the time of the incident, the appellant was about 35 years of age and as on date, he is around 68 years of age. It was also submitted that the appellant has already remained in jail during trial from 13.08.1994 to 27.08.1994 and after conviction from 26.04.1996 to 15.05.1996, therefore in total the appellant has remained in jail for one month and five days. Therefore, considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case, a lenient view may be taken and the sentence awarded to the appellant may be reduced to the period already undergone, and in order to compensate th