Rajasthan High Court – Jodhpur
Urn: Crla / 535U / 1996Purkha Ram And Anr vs State (2026:Rj-Jd:17354) on 9 April, 2026
Author: Farjand Ali
Bench: Farjand Ali
[2026:RJ-JD:17354]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 369/1996
1. Purkha Ram S/o Ganga Ram
2. Smt. Champa Devi W/o Purkha Ram; R/o 17 KYD, PS
Khajuwala, District Bikaner
----Appellant
Versus
State Of Rajasthan
----Respondent
For Appellant(s) : Ms. Sarika Bishnoi
For Respondent(s) : Mr. N.S. Chandawat, Dy.G.A.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FARJAND ALI
Judgment
09/04/2026
1. The present criminal appeal has been preferred by the
appellants under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure
assailing the judgment and order dated 16.07.1996 passed by the
learned Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act Cases
and Additional Sessions Judge, Bikaner in Criminal Case
No.70/1994, whereby the appellants were convicted for offences
under Sections 323 IPC and Section 404 IPC read with Section
3(1)(x) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act and were
sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment, along with fine and
default stipulations, with all sentences directed to run
concurrently.
2. The prosecution case originates from a written report lodged
on 25.10.1994 by complainant Kishna Ram S/o Raju Ram,
resident of Village 17-KYD, Tehsil Pugal, District Bikaner. The
complainant, belonging to the Meghwal community, alleged that
(Uploaded on 05/05/2026 at 09:43:02 AM)
(Downloaded on 08/05/2026 at 09:27:08 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:17354] (2 of 5) [CRLA-369/1996]
he was engaged in agricultural activities and had been using a
customary passage to access his house.
2.1. It was averred that the said passage was obstructed by the
accused persons i.e. Purkha Ram and his wife Champa Devi
whereupon the complainant approached the Collector, Bikaner,
who directed that the रास्ता be opened. This directive allegedly
aggrieved the accused persons.
2.2. Subsequently, on 19.10.1994 at about 9:00 AM, when the
complainant was proceeding towards Khajuwala and reached near
the house of the accused, both accused persons allegedly
intercepted him, hurled abusive language, assaulted him with fist
blows, tore his clothes, and threatened him with dire
consequences in case he continued to use the said रास्ता. It was
further alleged that witnesses present at the spot intervened and
pacified the situation.
2.3. The complainant initially approached the Police Station
Khajuwala; however, no action having been taken, he submitted
the report to the Superintendent of Police, Bikaner, pursuant to
which the case was registered under Sections 341, 323, 504 IPC
and Section 3 of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. After
completion of investigation, a charge-sheet was filed against the
accused persons.
2.4. The case was committed to the Court of Special Judge,
where charges were framed. The prosecution examined five
witnesses, while the accused were examined under Section 313
Cr.P.C. and one defence witness, Budha Ram, was examined.
2.5. Upon culmination of trial, the learned trial court convicted
the accused appellants vide judgment dated 16.07.1996 as stated
(Uploaded on 05/05/2026 at 09:43:02 AM)
(Downloaded on 08/05/2026 at 09:27:08 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:17354] (3 of 5) [CRLA-369/1996]
above. Aggrieved by the said judgment and sentence, the present
appeal has been preferred.
3. I have heard learned counsel for the parties as well as
learned Public Prosecutor and have carefully perused the
impugned judgment and the entire record of the case.
4. During the course of hearing, it has been brought to the
notice of this Court that appellant No.1 Purkha Ram has expired
on 06.01.2017. Learned Public Prosecutor has verified the said
fact and the death certificate has been placed on record, which is
taken on file. Accordingly, the appeal qua appellant No. 1 stands
abated. Thus, the present appeal survives only with respect to
appellant No. 2.
4.1. At this juncture, learned counsel for the surviving appellant
submits that the conviction recorded by the learned trial court is
not being assailed on merits. However, it is prayed that the appeal
be partly allowed to the extent of sentence, and the appellant be
released on the sentence already undergone, as she has already
served more than fifteen days of incarceration.
5. This Court has given thoughtful consideration to the
submissions advanced and has minutely examined the material
available on record.
5.1. In view of the categorical statement made by learned
counsel for the appellant that the conviction is not being
challenged, the findings of guilt recorded by the learned trial court
are affirmed and need no further interference in appellate
jurisdiction.
5.2. The only question that arises for determination is with
respect to the proportionality and adequacy of the sentence
(Uploaded on 05/05/2026 at 09:43:02 AM)
(Downloaded on 08/05/2026 at 09:27:08 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:17354] (4 of 5) [CRLA-369/1996]
imposed upon the surviving appellant. It is an admitted position
that the incident in question pertains to the year 1994, i.e., more
than three decades have elapsed since the occurrence. The
appellant has thus endured the protracted rigours of criminal
proceedings for an inordinately long duration.
5.3. It has further been brought on record that the appellant has
already undergone more than fifteen days of custodial sentence
out of the total sentence imposed. There is no material to suggest
any subsequent criminal conduct or misuse of liberty during the
intervening period.
5.4. Sentencing, in its true import, is not to be construed as an
instrument of mere retribution, but as a calibrated exercise in
balancing the gravity of the offence with mitigating circumstances,
including the passage of time, socio-economic background, and
the conduct of the accused.
5.5. In the present case, considering the antiquity of the incident,
the limited nature of the sentence imposed, and the fact that the
appellant has already undergone a part of the sentence, this Court
is of the considered opinion that directing the appellant to undergo
the remaining sentence at this belated stage would neither
advance the cause of justice nor serve any meaningful penal
objective. On the contrary, it would result in avoidable hardship
and would be disproportionate in the factual conspectus of the
case.
5.6. Accordingly, this Court is inclined to extend the benefit of
modification of sentence to the appellant by restricting the same
to the period already undergone.
(Uploaded on 05/05/2026 at 09:43:02 AM)
(Downloaded on 08/05/2026 at 09:27:08 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:17354] (5 of 5) [CRLA-369/1996]
6. Consequently, the appeal is partly allowed. The appeal qua
appellant No.1 stands abated. The judgment of conviction dated
16.07.1996 passed by the learned Special Judge SC/ST
(Prevention of Atrocities) Cases cum Addl. Sessions Judge,
Bikaner, in Criminal Case No.70/1994, is hereby affirmed and
maintained. However, the sentence of imprisonment imposed upon
the appellant No.2 is modified and reduced to the period already
undergone by her. The fine amounts, as imposed by the learned
trial Court, shall remain unaltered and shall be deposited by the
appellant 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
46-Mamta/-
(Uploaded on 05/05/2026 at 09:43:02 AM)
(Downloaded on 08/05/2026 at 09:27:08 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
[ad_1]
Source link
