P.S. Chechat. vs Mr. Rakesh Saini

: Mr. Sanjay Mehrishi with Mr. Rakesh Saini For Respondent(s) : Mr. Sudesh Saini, PP with Mr. Shubham Kapil Mr. Rajendra Singh Shekhawat, PP HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE BALJINDER SINGH SANDHU Judgment Reserved on Judgment Pronounced on

08.09.2025 12.09.2025

1. Instant appeal has been preferred against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 19.02.1996 passed by Additional District and Sessions Judge No.3, Kota Camp, [2025:RJ-JP:36121] (2 of 12) [CRLA-144/1996] Ramganjmandi, District Kota in Session Case No.31/1995, whereby the appellants Kanhi Ram, Tulsi Ram, Ram Ratan and Ram Dayal @ Daya Ram have been convicted and sentenced as under:- Offence Sentence Fine Sentence default of fine Section 148 IPC Two years R.I Section 326 IPC Four years R.I. Three months’ R.I. Rs.200/- Section 325/149 IPC Two years R.I. Rs.200/- Three months’ R.I. Section 324/149 IPC Two years R.I. Section 323/149 IPC One year R.I. Section 452 IPC One year R.I. Rs.200/- Three months’ R.I. And appellants Chaturbhuj, Kalu Lal Gujar S/o Uda, Madan Lal, Dev Karan, Kewal Lal, Modulal, Kalu S/o Birdhi and Ram Swaroop @ Sawaroop have been convicted and sentenced as under:- Offence Sentence Fine Sentence in default of Section 147 IPC Two years R.I Section 326/149 IPC Two years R.I Rs.200/- Three months’ R.I Section 325/149 Two years R.I Rs.200/- Three months’ R.I. Section 324/149 Two years R.I Section 323/149 One year R.I. Section 452 IPC One year R.I. Rs.200/- Three months’ R.I. All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently.

2. The appellant No.7 has expired and his appeal has already been dismissed as abated. The appeal is being considered qua other appellants.

3. Brief facts of the case are that on the basis of the ‘Parcha- Bayan’ of Phoolchand, Exp-39, an FIR bearing No.173/1994 was registered at Police Station-Chechat, District-Kota (Rural) for offence under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307, 452 and 323 of IPC to the effect that on 14.12.94 accused Kalu Lal S/o Birdhi, Kanhiram, Tulsiram, Ram Ratan, Keval Lal, Madan Lal, Ram Dayal, Swaroop, Kalu Lal S/o Uda, Devkaran and Chaturbhuj, Modulal came with weapons and attacked him in his house. All of them inflicted injuries [2025:RJ-JP:36121] (3 of 12) [CRLA-144/1996] with lathies and other weapons they were carrying. Kanhi Ram hit him with kulhari on right hand, Tulsi Ram hit him with kulhari on left feet, and Mohan Lal, Bane Singh, Durga Shankar and Devi Lal had witnessed the incident. It was stated that the accused- appellants attacked him due to animosity and litigation going on between them. After registration of the FIR and completion of the investigation, the charge-sheet was filed against the accused- appellants in the court concerned.

4. Learned Trial Court framed the charges against all the accused appellants for which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. The prosecution examined as many as 16 witnesses and exhibited 54 documents in support of their case. Upon being questioned under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and when confronted with the prosecution allegations, the accused denied the same and claimed to have been falsely implicated. Learned Trial Judge after hearing both the parties and carefully evaluating the evidence on record, convicted and sentenced the accused vide order dated

19.02.1996 as mentioned above, and acquitted them for offences under sections 307 and 307/149 IPC. Aggrieved against the order of conviction and sentence, accused appellants have preferred the instant appeal.

5. Learned counsel for the appellant Mr. Sanjay Mehrishi at the outset submits that he does not dispute the finding of guilty and the judgment of conviction passed by the Trial Court and to that extent, he does not press this appeal, and confines his argument to the alternative prayer of reduction of sentence on several grounds. He states that in the present case the incident took place in the year [2025:RJ-JP:36121] (4 of 12) [CRLA-144/1996] 1995 and the appellants have already suffered agony of protracted legal proceedings of about 30 years. Now, most of the accused are of old age with emaciated bodies and physical condition. Few of the accused were very young at the time of the incident, and they are the bread earners of the family. He further submits that the accused have remained in custody for a considerable period and have no criminal antecedents. Tulsi Ram, aged about 55 years, Kanhi Ram, aged about 69 years, Ram Ratan, aged about 50 years and Ram Dayal, aged about 49 years have remained in jail from 04.01.1995 to 13.11.1995 for about more than ten months, and accused Modu Lal, aged about 65 years, Kalu Lal S/o Birdhi, aged about 62 years, Keval Lal, aged about 60 years, Chaturbhuj, aged about 69 years and Ramswaroop, aged about 52 years have remained in jail from

04.01.1995 to 09.03.1995 for about more than two months and Devkaran, aged about 50 years remained in jail from 26.03.1995 to

04.04.1995. After conviction the accused have spend about eight jail. Therefore, considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case, lenient view may be taken and the sentence of the accused-appellants be reduced to the period already undergone by them, and to compensate the injured the fine be suitably enhanced.

6. Learned counsel for the accused appellants has placed reliance on the judgment in Sumer Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan, 2003(3) RHC 1269 and Rupa Ram Vs. State of Rajasthan, 2003(2) RHC 1039.

7. Learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the state, on the other has submitted that there is no illegality or infirmity in the impugned judgment whatsoever and therefore the same does not call for any [2025:RJ-JP:36121] (5 of 12) [CRLA-144/1996] interference. However he does not dispute the fact that the appellants have remained behind the bars for some time.

8. 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.

9. 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-appellants unlawfully entered the residential house of Phool Chand, and armed with deadly weapons, inflicted both simple and grievous injuries upon him. Accused Kanhi Ram, Tulsi Ram, Ram Ratan and Ram Dayal @ Daya Ram were equipped with sharp weapons and they have been assigned grievous injuries on hand and legs of the injured, and weapons have been recovered at their instance. They have been found guilty for charges under Section 326 IPC along with other offences and have been convicted and sentenced to undergo four years R.I. and two years R.I. and one year R.I for other offences. Other accused Kalulal Gurjar, Dev Karan, Kewal Lal, Modulal, Kalu Lal S/o Birdhi, Ram Swaroop @ Swaroop were quipped with lathies and they were said to have caused injuries with lathies and have been convicted under Section 326 IPC with the aid of Section 149 IPC along with other offences and sentenced to undergo two years and one year R.I. Although four of the witnesses named in the FIR namely, Mohan Lal, Bane Singh, Durga Shankar, and Devkaran have turned hostile, the testimony of the injured witness Phoolchand, stands duly corroborated by the medical evidence and the recovery of weapons [2025:RJ-JP:36121] (6 of 12) [CRLA-144/1996] from the accused. The conviction has, therefore, been based solely on the credible and trustworthy testimony of the injured witness, Phool Chand. On considering the evidence on record, I am satisfied that the trial court has not fallen in error of law or appreciation of evidence in accordance with law, to hold the appellants guilty of the charges framed against them. The learned trial court has passed the order of conviction based on sound reason and there is no ground for interference, and the same is affirmed. Moreover, the appellants have not assailed the order of conviction and the counsel has only confined his arguments to reducing the sentence for the period already undergone.

10. 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.

11. 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 [2025:RJ-JP:36121] (7 of 12) [CRLA-144/1996] 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.” immense “19. Given the fact that the trial and appeal proceedings have in the case at hand continued for nearly 17 years by now causing (sic trauma, mental 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 7‰ 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.” incarnation

12. In Gulmahmad Abdulla Dall Vs. State of Gujarat, [(2015) 15 SCC 506], the Hon’ble Supreme Court, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, reduced the substantive sentence imposed on the appellant and enhanced the amount of fine. While doing so, the Court made the following pertinent observation:- “The incident, in question, took place as back as on 29/6/1987. Almost 27 years have passed by. All these years, the appellants must have suffered tremendous mental trauma and anguish. The appellants have lost their jobs and all retiral benefits. The appellant - Jujarsinh is, as of today, about 76 years old. We are informed by learned counsel for the appellant - Gulmahmad Abdulla Dall that Gulmahmad is suffering from gangrene and has undergone surgery. Both the appellants are in jail. We are informed by learned counsel for the appellants that the appellants have undergone about more than two months imprisonment.”

13. Similarly in M.W. Mohiuddin Vs. State of Maharashtra, [(1995) 3 SCC 567], the Hon’ble Supreme Court maintained the conviction of the appellants and reduced the sentence while making the following observations:- [2025:RJ-JP:36121] (8 of 12) [CRLA-144/1996] “…. 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…..”

14. 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.”

15. 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:- “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 [2025:RJ-JP:36121] (9 of 12) [CRLA-144/1996] 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.”

16. 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 by this Court 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, 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 [2025:RJ-JP:36121] (10 of 12) [CRLA-144/1996] 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.”

17. Considering the facts of the present case in light of the principles guiding the sentencing process and variety of factors including mitigating circumstances in determining the quantum of sentence, this court finds that Kanhi Ram, Tulsi Ram, Ram Ratan and Ram Dayal @ Daya Ram had inflicted injuries with sharp weapons on hands and legs and have already undergone substantial custody of more than ten months. The other accused Chaturbhuj, Kalulal Gurjar, Dev Karan, Kewal Lal, Modu Lal, Ram Swaroop have inflicted injuries with lathies and have also undergone substantial custody of four months. The incident is of the year 1995 and the appellants have already suffered the agony of a protracted trial and appeal proceedings spanning over a period of about 30 years. Several of the appellants are touching the age of 65 to 69. All the accused have been on bail throughout and for almost 30 years, and there is nothing on record to indicate that they have indulged in any criminal activity. Considering the totality of the facts and [2025:RJ-JP:36121] (11 of 12) [CRLA-144/1996] circumstances of this case and taking into consideration the gravity & nature of offence, the injuries caused, role of the accused and the custody undergone by them respectively, age of the accused- appellants at the time of the offence and now, their conduct, this Court finds that the case of the appellants deserves to be dealt with leniency and the sentence already undergone by the convicts is adequate and the ends of justice would be met if sentence imposed upon the accused appellants is reduced to the one already undergone by them. Accordingly, the sentence awarded to the appellants is reduced to the actual period already served.

18. However, in view of the facts and circumstances of the present case and looking to the injuries sustained by injured Phoolchand, the fine imposed upon the accused-appellants under Sections 326 and 326/149 respectively deserves to be enhanced, so as to compensate the injured. Hence, each of the accused appellants shall be liable to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/-. Rest of the fine imposed by the trial court is maintained. The said amount shall be deposited on or before 15.10.2025.

19. 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-Phoolchand as compensation, by the trial court.

20. Accordingly, the judgment of conviction dated 19.02.1996 passed by an Additional District and Sessions Judge No.3, Kota Camp Ramganjmandi, District Kota is affirmed, but the quantum of substantive sentence awarded to the appellants as mentioned in para 1 is modified and reduced to the period already undergone, [2025:RJ-JP:36121] (12 of 12) [CRLA-144/1996] and the fine is enhanced in above stated terms. The appellants are on bail, they need not surrender. Their bail bonds stand discharged accordingly.

21. The criminal appeal is allowed in part.

22. The record be returned to the trial court. Sunita/3 (BALJINDER SINGH SANDHU),J

: Mr. Sanjay Mehrishi with Mr. Rakesh Saini For Respondent(s) : Mr. Sudesh Saini, PP with Mr. Shubham Kapil Mr. Rajendra Singh Shekhawat, PP HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE BALJINDER SINGH SANDHU Judgment Reserved on Judgment Pronounced on

08.09.2025 12.09.2025

1. Instant appeal has been preferred against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 19.02.1996 passed by Additional District and Sessions Judge No.3, Kota Camp, [2025:RJ-JP:36121] (2 of 12) [CRLA-144/1996] Ramganjmandi, District Kota in Session Case No.31/1995, whereby the appellants Kanhi Ram, Tulsi Ram, Ram Ratan and Ram Dayal @ Daya Ram have been convicted and sentenced as under:- Offence Sentence Fine Sentence default of fine Section 148 IPC Two years R.I Section 326 IPC Four years R.I. Three months’ R.I. Rs.200/- Section 325/149 IPC Two years R.I. Rs.200/- Three months’ R.I. Section 324/149 IPC Two years R.I. Section 323/149 IPC One year R.I. Section 452 IPC One year R.I. Rs.200/- Three months’ R.I. And appellants Chaturbhuj, Kalu Lal Gujar S/o Uda, Madan Lal, Dev Karan, Kewal Lal, Modulal, Kalu S/o Birdhi and Ram Swaroop @ Sawaroop have been convicted and sentenced as under:- Offence Sentence Fine Sentence in default of Section 147 IPC Two years R.I Section 326/149 IPC Two years R.I Rs.200/- Three months’ R.I Section 325/149 Two years R.I Rs.200/- Three months’ R.I. Section 324/149 Two years R.I Section 323/149 One year R.I. Section 452 IPC One year R.I. Rs.200/- Three months’ R.I. All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently.

2. The appellant No.7 has expired and his appeal has already been dismissed as abated. The appeal is being considered qua other appellants.

3. Brief facts of the case are that on the basis of the ‘Parcha- Bayan’ of Phoolchand, Exp-39, an FIR bearing No.173/1994 was registered at Police Station-Chechat, District-Kota (Rural) for offence under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307, 452 and 323 of IPC to the effect that on 14.12.94 accused Kalu Lal S/o Birdhi, Kanhiram, Tulsiram, Ram Ratan, Keval Lal, Madan Lal, Ram Dayal, Swaroop, Kalu Lal S/o Uda, Devkaran and Chaturbhuj, Modulal came with weapons and attacked him in his house. All of them inflicted injuries [2025:RJ-JP:36121] (3 of 12) [CRLA-144/1996] with lathies and other weapons they were carrying. Kanhi Ram hit him with kulhari on right hand, Tulsi Ram hit him with kulhari on left feet, and Mohan Lal, Bane Singh, Durga Shankar and Devi Lal had witnessed the incident. It was stated that the accused- appellants attacked him due to animosity and litigation going on between them. After registration of the FIR and completion of the investigation, the charge-sheet was filed against the accused- appellants in the court concerned.

4. Learned Trial Court framed the charges against all the accused appellants for which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. The prosecution examined as many as 16 witnesses and exhibited 54 documents in support of their case. Upon being questioned under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and when confronted with the prosecution allegations, the accused denied the same and claimed to have been falsely implicated. Learned Trial Judge after hearing both the parties and carefully evaluating the evidence on record, convicted and sentenced the accused vide order dated

19.02.1996 as mentioned above, and acquitted them for offences under sections 307 and 307/149 IPC. Aggrieved against the order of conviction and sentence, accused appellants have preferred the instant appeal.

5. Learned counsel for the appellant Mr. Sanjay Mehrishi at the outset submits that he does not dispute the finding of guilty and the judgment of conviction passed by the Trial Court and to that extent, he does not press this appeal, and confines his argument to the alternative prayer of reduction of sentence on several grounds. He states that in the present case the incident took place in the year [2025:RJ-JP:36121] (4 of 12) [CRLA-144/1996] 1995 and the appellants have already suffered agony of protracted legal proceedings of about 30 years. Now, most of the accused are of old age with emaciated bodies and physical condition. Few of the accused were very young at the time of the incident, and they are the bread earners of the family. He further submits that the accused have remained in custody for a considerable period and have no criminal antecedents. Tulsi Ram, aged about 55 years, Kanhi Ram, aged about 69 years, Ram Ratan, aged about 50 years and Ram Dayal, aged about 49 years have remained in jail from 04.01.1995 to 13.11.1995 for about more than ten months, and accused Modu Lal, aged about 65 years, Kalu Lal S/o Birdhi, aged about 62 years, Keval Lal, aged about 60 years, Chaturbhuj, aged about 69 years and Ramswaroop, aged about 52 years have remained in jail from

04.01.1995 to 09.03.1995 for about more than two months and Devkaran, aged about 50 years remained in jail from 26.03.1995 to

04.04.1995. After conviction the accused have spend about eight jail. Therefore, considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case, lenient view may be taken and the sentence of the accused-appellants be reduced to the period already undergone by them, and to compensate the injured the fine be suitably enhanced.

6. Learned counsel for the accused appellants has placed reliance on the judgment in Sumer Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan, 2003(3) RHC 1269 and Rupa Ram Vs. State of Rajasthan, 2003(2) RHC 1039.

7. Learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the state, on the other has submitted that there is no illegality or infirmity in the impugned judgment whatsoever and therefore the same does not call for any [2025:RJ-JP:36121] (5 of 12) [CRLA-144/1996] interference. However he does not dispute the fact that the appellants have remained behind the bars for some time.

8. 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.

9. 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-appellants unlawfully entered the residential house of Phool Chand, and armed with deadly weapons, inflicted both simple and grievous injuries upon him. Accused Kanhi Ram, Tulsi Ram, Ram Ratan and Ram Dayal @ Daya Ram were equipped with sharp weapons and they have been assigned grievous injuries on hand and legs of the injured, and weapons have been recovered at their instance. They have been found guilty for charges under Section 326 IPC along with other offences and have been convicted and sentenced to undergo four years R.I. and two years R.I. and one year R.I for other offences. Other accused Kalulal Gurjar, Dev Karan, Kewal Lal, Modulal, Kalu Lal S/o Birdhi, Ram Swaroop @ Swaroop were quipped with lathies and they were said to have caused injuries with lathies and have been convicted under Section 326 IPC with the aid of Section 149 IPC along with other offences and sentenced to undergo two years and one year R.I. Although four of the witnesses named in the FIR namely, Mohan Lal, Bane Singh, Durga Shankar, and Devkaran have turned hostile, the testimony of the injured witness Phoolchand, stands duly corroborated by the medical evidence and the recovery of weapons [2025:RJ-JP:36121] (6 of 12) [CRLA-144/1996] from the accused. The conviction has, therefore, been based solely on the credible and trustworthy testimony of the injured witness, Phool Chand. On considering the evidence on record, I am satisfied that the trial court has not fallen in error of law or appreciation of evidence in accordance with law, to hold the appellants guilty of the charges framed against them. The learned trial court has passed the order of conviction based on sound reason and there is no ground for interference, and the same is affirmed. Moreover, the appellants have not assailed the order of conviction and the counsel has only confined his arguments to reducing the sentence for the period already undergone.

10. 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.

11. 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 [2025:RJ-JP:36121] (7 of 12) [CRLA-144/1996] 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.” immense “19. Given the fact that the trial and appeal proceedings have in the case at hand continued for nearly 17 years by now causing (sic trauma, mental 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 7‰ 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.” incarnation

12. In Gulmahmad Abdulla Dall Vs. State of Gujarat, [(2015) 15 SCC 506], the Hon’ble Supreme Court, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, reduced the substantive sentence imposed on the appellant and enhanced the amount of fine. While doing so, the Court made the following pertinent observation:- “The incident, in question, took place as back as on 29/6/1987. Almost 27 years have passed by. All these years, the appellants must have suffered tremendous mental trauma and anguish. The appellants have lost their jobs and all retiral benefits. The appellant - Jujarsinh is, as of today, about 76 years old. We are informed by learned counsel for the appellant - Gulmahmad Abdulla Dall that Gulmahmad is suffering from gangrene and has undergone surgery. Both the appellants are in jail. We are informed by learned counsel for the appellants that the appellants have undergone about more than two months imprisonment.”

13. Similarly in M.W. Mohiuddin Vs. State of Maharashtra, [(1995) 3 SCC 567], the Hon’ble Supreme Court maintained the conviction of the appellants and reduced the sentence while making the following observations:- [2025:RJ-JP:36121] (8 of 12) [CRLA-144/1996] “…. 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…..”

14. 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.”

15. 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:- “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 [2025:RJ-JP:36121] (9 of 12) [CRLA-144/1996] 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.”

16. 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 by this Court 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, 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 [2025:RJ-JP:36121] (10 of 12) [CRLA-144/1996] 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.”

17. Considering the facts of the present case in light of the principles guiding the sentencing process and variety of factors including mitigating circumstances in determining the quantum of sentence, this court finds that Kanhi Ram, Tulsi Ram, Ram Ratan and Ram Dayal @ Daya Ram had inflicted injuries with sharp weapons on hands and legs and have already undergone substantial custody of more than ten months. The other accused Chaturbhuj, Kalulal Gurjar, Dev Karan, Kewal Lal, Modu Lal, Ram Swaroop have inflicted injuries with lathies and have also undergone substantial custody of four months. The incident is of the year 1995 and the appellants have already suffered the agony of a protracted trial and appeal proceedings spanning over a period of about 30 years. Several of the appellants are touching the age of 65 to 69. All the accused have been on bail throughout and for almost 30 years, and there is nothing on record to indicate that they have indulged in any criminal activity. Considering the totality of the facts and [2025:RJ-JP:36121] (11 of 12) [CRLA-144/1996] circumstances of this case and taking into consideration the gravity & nature of offence, the injuries caused, role of the accused and the custody undergone by them respectively, age of the accused- appellants at the time of the offence and now, their conduct, this Court finds that the case of the appellants deserves to be dealt with leniency and the sentence already undergone by the convicts is adequate and the ends of justice would be met if sentence imposed upon the accused appellants is reduced to the one already undergone by them. Accordingly, the sentence awarded to the appellants is reduced to the actual period already served.

18. However, in view of the facts and circumstances of the present case and looking to the injuries sustained by injured Phoolchand, the fine imposed upon the accused-appellants under Sections 326 and 326/149 respectively deserves to be enhanced, so as to compensate the injured. Hence, each of the accused appellants shall be liable to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/-. Rest of the fine imposed by the trial court is maintained. The said amount shall be deposited on or before 15.10.2025.

19. 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-Phoolchand as compensation, by the trial court.

20. Accordingly, the judgment of conviction dated 19.02.1996 passed by an Additional District and Sessions Judge No.3, Kota Camp Ramganjmandi, District Kota is affirmed, but the quantum of substantive sentence awarded to the appellants as mentioned in para 1 is modified and reduced to the period already undergone, [2025:RJ-JP:36121] (12 of 12) [CRLA-144/1996] and the fine is enhanced in above stated terms. The appellants are on bail, they need not surrender. Their bail bonds stand discharged accordingly.

21. The criminal appeal is allowed in part.

22. The record be returned to the trial court. Sunita/3 (BALJINDER SINGH SANDHU),J