Rajasthan High Court – Jodhpur
Urn: Crla / 1440U / 1998Chhitardas And … vs State (2026:Rj-Jd:17366) on 8 April, 2026
Author: Farjand Ali
Bench: Farjand Ali
[2026:RJ-JD:17366]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 688/1998
1. Chhitardas S/o Kesardas
2. Debi S/o Balu
3. Kailash S/o Balu
4. Debi S/o Moti
5. Raju S/o Hazari All R/o Village Sihana PS Pander, District
Bhilwara
----Appellant
Versus
State Of Rajasthan
----Respondent
For Appellant(s) : Ms. Yogita Mohnani
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Surendra Bishnoi, AGA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FARJAND ALI
Judgment
08/04/2026
1. The present appeal under Section 374(2) of the Code of
Criminal Procedure has been preferred by the appellants assailing
the judgment dated 17.11.1998 passed by the learned Special
Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act Cases, Bhilwara in
Sessions Case No. 117/1998, whereby the appellants (except
appellant Raju, who was convicted and sentenced as under:-
Name of the Offence for Substantive Fine and default
accused which sentence sentence
convicted
1. Chhitardas Section 3(i)(V) Six months’ SI Fine of Rs.500/- each
of the SC/ST and in default to
2. Debi S/oBalu Act further undergo one
3. Kailash month’s SI
4. Debi S/o Moti Section 147 IPC Two months’ SI Fine of Rs.500/- each
and in default to
further undergo one
month’s SI(Uploaded on 05/05/2026 at 11:14:27 AM)
(Downloaded on 08/05/2026 at 08:50:47 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:17366] (2 of 5) [CRLA-688/1998]Section 447 IPC One month’s SI Fine of Rs.200/- each
and in default to
further undergo one
month’s SI
Section 323 IPC Two months’ Fine of Rs.500/- each
SI and in default to
further undergo one
month’s SI
Raju Section 147 IPC Two months’ SI Fine of Rs.500/- and
in default to further
undergo one month’s
SI
Section 447 IPC One month’s SI Fine of Rs.200/- and
in default to further
undergo one month’s
SI
Section 323 IPC Two months’ Fine of Rs.500/- and
SI in default to further
undergo one month’s
SIAll substantive sentences were directed to run concurrently.
2. The prosecution case, in essence, emanates from an
occurrence alleged to have taken place on 20.06.1994, wherein
the appellants are stated to have formed an unlawful assembly
and entered the agricultural field of one Bhoma with the alleged
intention of causing damage to the standing crop.
2.1. An FIR came to be lodged by Baldeo at Police Station Pander,
leading to registration of offences under Sections 147, 148, 149,
447, 427 and 323 IPC. Upon completion of investigation, the
police submitted a charge-sheet against the accused persons for
offences under Sections 147, 149, 447 and 323 IPC along with
Section 3(1)(v)/(x) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.
2.2. During the course of proceedings, one accused Ramjas came
to be discharged, whereas charges were framed against the
present appellants for offences under Sections 147, 447 and 323
IPC and Section 3(1)(v) of the SC/ST Act. The accused denied the
charges and claimed trial.
(Uploaded on 05/05/2026 at 11:14:27 AM)
(Downloaded on 08/05/2026 at 08:50:47 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:17366] (3 of 5) [CRLA-688/1998]
2.3. The prosecution, in order to substantiate its case, examined
its witnesses and placed documentary evidence on record. The
statements of the accused persons were recorded under Section
313 Cr.P.C., wherein they denied the allegations.
2.4. Upon appreciation of the evidence, the learned trial court
recorded a finding of guilt against the appellants and convicted
and sentenced them as indicated hereinabove. Being aggrieved by
the said judgment and order dated 17.11.1998, the appellants
have preferred the present appeal.
3. I have heard learned counsel for the appellants as well as
learned Public Prosecutor and have carefully perused the
impugned judgment along with the entire record of the case.
4. At the outset, learned counsel for the appellants, on
instructions, submits that the appellants do not wish to press the
appeal on merits insofar as it relates to the findings of conviction
recorded by the learned trial court. The challenge is confined only
to the quantum of sentence. It is urged that the appellants have
already undergone a period of approximately fifteen days of
incarceration and, therefore, the sentence already undergone may
be considered sufficient in the facts and circumstances of the
case.
5. This Court has given its thoughtful consideration to the
submissions advanced and has examined the material available on
record.
5.1. In view of the categorical stand taken by learned counsel for
the appellants, the findings of conviction recorded by the learned
trial court are not subjected to reappraisal and are accordingly
affirmed.
(Uploaded on 05/05/2026 at 11:14:27 AM)
(Downloaded on 08/05/2026 at 08:50:47 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:17366] (4 of 5) [CRLA-688/1998]
5.2. The question that now falls for determination is whether the
sentence imposed warrants interference. It is an admitted position
that the incident in question dates back to the year 1994, i.e.,
more than three decades have elapsed since the occurrence. The
appellants have thus faced the ordeal of criminal prosecution for
an inordinately long duration, which itself constitutes a significant
mitigating circumstance.
5.3. It has further been brought on record that the appellants
have already undergone approximately fifteen days of custodial
sentence out of the total sentence imposed upon them. There is
nothing on record to indicate that the appellants have misused the
liberty granted to them during the pendency of proceedings or
have been involved in any subsequent criminal activity.
5.4. The object of sentencing, as consistently emphasised in
criminal jurisprudence, is to ensure that the punishment is
commensurate with the gravity of the offence while also taking
into account the mitigating circumstances pertaining to the
offender. In the present case, the passage of a considerable period
of time since the incident, coupled with the limited period of
incarceration already undergone, persuades this Court to adopt a
lenient approach.
5.5. Requiring the appellants to undergo the remaining period of
sentence at this distant point of time would not advance the ends
of justice and would instead operate as an excessive and
disproportionate measure.
5.6. This Court is, therefore, of the considered opinion that the
ends of justice would be adequately met by modifying the
sentence to the period already undergone by the appellants.
(Uploaded on 05/05/2026 at 11:14:27 AM)
(Downloaded on 08/05/2026 at 08:50:47 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:17366] (5 of 5) [CRLA-688/1998]
6. Consequently, the appeal is partly allowed. The conviction of
the appellants, as recorded by the learned Special Judge, SC/ST
(Prevention of Atrocities) Act Cases, Bhilwara vide judgment dated
17.11.1998, is hereby affirmed. However, the sentence awarded
to the appellants is modified to the period already undergone by
them. The appellants are on bail. They are not required to
surrender. Their bail bonds stand discharged. The fine amounts, as
imposed by the learned trial Court, shall remain unaltered and
shall be deposited by the appellants before the learned trial Court
within a period of ninety (90) days from the date of this judgment,
if not already deposited.
7. The record be remitted forthwith, and a copy of this
judgment be transmitted to the learned trial Court concerned
expeditiously, for information and necessary compliance.
(FARJAND ALI),J
95-Mamta/-
(Uploaded on 05/05/2026 at 11:14:27 AM)
(Downloaded on 08/05/2026 at 08:50:47 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
