State of Rajasthan v. For

Judgment

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.

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 [2025:RJ-JP:36783] (2 of 10) [CRLA-305/1996] 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 [2025:RJ-JP:36783] (3 of 10) [CRLA-305/1996] 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 the injured, the amount of fine may suitably be enhanced. He relied upon the precedent reported in 2003 (2) RHC 1039, Rupa Ram vs. State of Rajasthan as well as the judgment rendered by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 972/2006 titled as Ram Karan vs. State of Rajasthan, decided on 08.07.2024.

6. Learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the state, on the other hand, has submitted that there is no illegality or infirmity in the impugned judgment whatsoever and therefore the same does not call for any interference. However, he does not dispute the fact that the appellant has remained behind the bars for some time. [2025:RJ-JP:36783] (4 of 10) [CRLA-305/1996]

7. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the submissions advanced at the Bar and have gone through the impugned judgment and the entire record of the case.

8. On a cumulative reading and appreciation of the entire evidence on record, this court finds that the prosecution has successfully established the case beyond reasonable doubt and proved that the accused-appellant inflicted grievous injury on the right side of the complainant’s face by a sharp-edged weapon. The prosecution case is primarily based on the testimony of the injured complainant PW-3, who has clearly deposed that the accused Hariom attacked him with a razor and caused the said injury. His testimony finds corroboration from the statements of PW.1-Dr. Babulal, PW.2-Bhagwan Das, and the medical evidence (Ex. P-5 and Ex. P-7), which indicate that the injury was caused by a sharp-edged weapon. The weapon was recovered from the house of the accused pursuant to the information given under section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act. Therefore, in such circumstances, I am satisfied that the learned Trial Judge has not fallen in error of law or appreciation of evidence in accordance with law, to hold the appellant guilty of charges framed against him. The learned Trial Court has passed the order of conviction based on sound reasoning and there is no ground for interference in the same.

9. While considering the question of sentence, it is observed that the Hon’ble Supreme Court and the High Courts have consistently taken the view that the sentence already undergone by the convict may be considered adequate in light of various mitigating factors and circumstances present in the case. [2025:RJ-JP:36783] (5 of 10) [CRLA-305/1996]

10. In K.P. Singh v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2015) 15 SCC 497, Hon’ble Apex Court observed that the quantum of sentence to be awarded would depend upon variety of factors including the mitigating circumstances in a given case and held as under:- “10. Determining the adequacy of sentence to be awarded in a given case is not an easy task, just as evolving a uniform sentencing policy is a tough call. That is because the quantum of sentence that may be awarded depends upon a variety of factors including mitigating circumstances peculiar to a given case. The courts generally enjoy considerable amount of discretion in the matter of determining the quantum of sentence. In doing so, the courts are influenced in varying degrees by the reformative, deterrent and punitive aspects of punishment, delay in the conclusion of the trial and legal proceedings, the age of the accused, his physical/health condition, the nature of the offence, the weapon used and in the cases of illegal gratification the amount of bribe, loss of job and family obligations of the accused are also some of the considerations that weigh heavily with the courts while determining the sentence to be awarded. The courts have not attempted to exhaustively enumerate the considerations that go into determination of the quantum of sentence nor have the courts attempted to lay down the weight that each one of these considerations carry. That is because any such exercise is neither easy nor advisable given the myriad situations in which the question may fall for determination. Broadly speaking, the courts have recognized the factors mentioned earlier as being relevant to the question of determining the sentence. The decisions of this Court on the subject are a legion. Reference to some only should, however, suffice.” “19. Given the fact that the trial and appeal proceedings have in the case at hand continued for nearly 17 years by now causing immense trauma, mental incarnation (sic incarceration) and anguish to the appellant and also given the fact that the bribe amount was just about Rs 700 and that the appellant has already undergone 7½ months imprisonment against the statutory minimum of 6 months' imprisonment, the reduction of the sentence as proposed by my esteemed Brother appears to be perfectly in order. I, therefore, concur with the view taken by his Lordship.”

11. Similarly in M.W. Mohiuddin Vs. State of Maharashtra, [(1995) 3 SCC 567], the Hon’ble Supreme Court maintained the [2025:RJ-JP:36783] (6 of 10) [CRLA-305/1996] conviction of the appellants and reduced the sentence while making the following observations:- “…. All these years the appellant has undergone the agony of criminal proceedings uptil now and he has also lost his job and has a large family to support. It is also stated that he has become sick and infirm. He has been in jail for some time. For all these special reasons, while confirming the conviction of the appellant, we reduce the sentence of imprisonment to the period already undergone. However, we confirm the sentence of fine with default clause…..”

12. In Haripada Das Vs. State of W.B. and Anr., reported in 1998 (9) SCC 678, the Hon’ble Supreme Court dealt with an appeal challenging the conviction of the appellant as under:- “6. This appeal is directed against the conviction of the appellant under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act for selling adulterated mustard oil. Although in the samples drawn by the Food Inspector, no impurities or objects injurious to health could be detected but it was found that the saponification value exceeded marginally than the prescribed limit and the BR reading also exceeded marginally than the prescribed limit. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and also considering that the appellant was released on bail by this Court long back and because of the protracted litigation up to this Court he has also suffered a lot of mental agony and also financial hardship and also considering the fact that he had already undergone imprisonment for more than three weeks, we feel that in the facts of the case the ends of justice will be met if the sentence of imprisonment is reduced to the period already undergone. We, however, direct that besides the fine imposed by the courts below, the appellant will have to pay a fine of Rs. 5000 within four weeks from today, in default he will have to undergo imprisonment for three months. The appeals are disposed of accordingly. The bail bonds stand discharged.”

13. While laying down principles for sentencing and tests for awarding an appropriate sentence in a given case, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Alister Anthony Pareira Vs. State of Maharashtra reported in (2012) 2 SCC 648 observed as under:- [2025:RJ-JP:36783] (7 of 10) [CRLA-305/1996] “84. Sentencing is an important task in the matters of crime. One of the prime objectives of the criminal law is imposition of appropriate, adequate, just and proportionate sentence commensurate with the nature and gravity of crime and the manner in which the crime is done. There is no straitjacket formula for sentencing an accused on proof of crime. The courts have evolved certain principles: the twin objective of the sentencing policy is deterrence and correction. What sentence would meet the ends of justice depends on the facts and circumstances of each case and the court must keep in mind the gravity of the crime, motive for the crime, nature of the offence and all other attendant circumstances.”

14. This question was recently considered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in K. Pounammal Vs. State Represented by the Inspector of Police reported in 2025 INSC 1014 and the Hon’ble Apex Court after examining this question in the light of law laid down in earlier decisions on the subject, held as under:- “6. The conviction and sentence have their respective realms. While the conviction would be recorded on the basis of evidence adduced before the Court which would establish the implication of the accused in the offence, the guilty person or the convicted when to be awarded a sentence, a host of factors would operate to govern.

6.1 In determining the final sentence and the nature thereof, variety of factors that would operate would include the intervening time between the commission of offence and the actual award of the sentence, age of the accused, the stress which he or she might have suffered because of passage of time during each case has remained pending and undecided, the family circumstance and such other factors, without becoming exhaustive.

7. The process of sentencing by the courts is guided by theories such as punitive, deterrent or reformative. Each school of thought has its own object and purpose to explain awarding of sentence and its utility. Amongst these theories, reformative approach has become increasingly acceptable to the modern jurisprudence. Reformation is something always considered progressive. When there are mitigating circumstances, the court would lean towards reducing of the sentence. The focus would be on the crime, and not on the criminal. The society and system would nurture the guilt with positivity, while selecting the sentence.

8. In light of the above principles guiding the sentencing process, the submission of learned advocate for the appellant could be countenanced that in the case on hand the incident had taken place on 23.09.2002. Since then, [2025:RJ-JP:36783] (8 of 10) [CRLA-305/1996] more than two decades have passed by. The appellant underwent imprisonment for 31 days. The appellant is a widow lady. It was stated that she is now 75 years of age. The appellant has been staying alone, the husband having died, stated her learned counsel. She belongs to scheduled caste and has been spending her life negotiating all hardships.

9. The prolongation of a criminal case for an unreasonable period is in itself a kind of suffering. It amounts to mental incarceration for the person facing such proceedings. For a person who is convicted and who has appealed against his or her conviction and sentence and who everyday awaits the fate of litigation, spends time in distress. In the present-day system of administration of justice, in which proceedings have often go on protracted unreasonably and therefore unbearably, the passage of long time itself makes the person suffer a mental agony.

10. The aspects in the present case as highlighted above that the incident had occurred more than 22 years ago and that the age of the widow appellant is 75 years who stays alone, the Court finds it appropriate that she may not be made to undergo the imprisonment again. In the totality of the facts and circumstances, the imprisonment already undergone by her is treated to be adequate sentence.”

10.1 The sentence awarded to the appellant is accordingly reduced to the actual undergone. At the same time the imposition of fine is required to be increased. The appellant shall be liable to pay fine of ₹25,000/- over and above originally imposed. The amount of fine shall be paid on or before 10th September, 2025.”

15. Considering the facts in light of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court, in the present case the incident had occurred due to some verbal altercations between the appellant and the injured, way back in the year 1994, and the appellant has already suffered agony of a protracted trial and appeal proceedings spanning over a period of more than 30 years. He has remained in jail for one month and five days. The appellant is now of advanced age, 68 years, and is infirm. The appellant has already suffered the prolonged criminal case for an unreasonable period, which in itself a kind of suffering. Taking in view the totality of facts and mitigating circumstances of the case, and taking into consideration [2025:RJ-JP:36783] (9 of 10) [CRLA-305/1996] the gravity & nature of offence, age of the accused, the injury caused, custody undergone by the accused-appellant, this Court finds that the case of the appellant deserves to be dealt with leniency and the sentence already undergone by the convict is adequate and the ends of justice would be met if sentence imposed upon the accused appellant is reduced to the one already undergone by him. Accordingly, the sentence awarded to the appellant is reduced to the actual period already served.

16. However, in view of the facts and circumstances of the present case and looking to the injuries sustained by injured- Aryadev, the fine imposed upon the accused-appellant deserves to be enhanced so as to compensate the injured. Hence, the accused appellant shall be liable to pay a fine of Rs. 25,000/-. The said amount shall be deposited on or before 31.10.2025.

17. In case the fine is not deposited within the stipulated time, the accused appellant shall be liable to undergo the default sentence imposed by the trial court. The fine if realized shall be paid to the injured-Aryadev as compensation, by the trial court.

18. Accordingly, the judgment of conviction dated 26.04.1996 passed by the Special Judge, SC/ST Prevention of Cases, Sawai Madhopur in Sessions Case No.11/95(3/96) is affirmed, but the quantum of substantive sentence awarded to the appellant is modified and reduced to the period already undergone, and the fine is enhanced to Rs. 25,000/- The appellant is on bail, he need not surrender. His bail bonds stands discharged accordingly.

19. The criminal appeal is allowed in part. [2025:RJ-JP:36783] (10 of 10) [CRLA-305/1996]

20. The record be returned to the trial court Sunita/ 30 (BALJINDER SINGH SANDHU),J