[2025:RJ-JP:40317] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 407/1997 Pinki Alias Lakhan Singh S/o Shri Hakumat Singh, R/o Namak ka Katra, Bharatpur, P.S. Kotwali, Bharatpur ----Appellant Versus State of Rajasthan ----Respondent For Appellant(s) : Mr. M.C. Jain with Mr. Prayaag Jain For Respondent(s) : Mr. Jitender Singh Rathore, Additional G.A. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BHUWAN GOYAL Order 06/10/2025 1. The present appeal has been filed by the accused-appellant- Pinki Alias Lakhan Singh against the judgment and order dated 29.08.1997 passed by Sessions Judge, Bharatpur in Sessions Case No. 233/1994 titled as "State of Rajasthan vs. Pinki Alias Lakhan Singh" whereby, accused-appellant has been convicted for the offence under section 325 I.P.C. & sentenced to undergo one year’s rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs. 3000/-; in default of payment of fine to further undergo 3 months imprisonment. 2. Facts of the case in short are that the complainant – Ramesh Chandra submitted a tehriri report (Ex. P/5) with regard to an incident took place on 24.10.1994 to the effect that on that day at around 3-3.30 PM, his brother Baney Singh was standing near Subhash’s shop. At that time, his son, riding on a bicycle, passed [2025:RJ-JP:40317] (2 of 6) [CRLA-407/1997] by the said shop and while passing some mud was splashed over the clothes of accused-appellant- Pinki Alias Lakhan Singh. On this, accused-appellant abused him and asked him to give compensation for washing the clothes. Thereafter, accused- appellant called his brother Mona and other accused persons, who came with lathis and other weapons and after encircling Baney Singh beat him and caused multiple injuries to him. Baney Singh was taken to the hospital where he was declared dead. On that basis, F.I.R. No. 299/1994 was registered at Police Station Kotwali, District Bharatpur for the offence under sections 147, 148, 149 and 302 of I.P.C and Section 3 of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act and investigation was commenced. After investigation, police submitted charge-sheet against appellant for the offence under Section 302 I.P.C and Section 3 of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bharatpur, from where the case was committed to the Court of Sessions for trial. The trial court framed charges against the accused-appellant for the offence under Section 302 I.P.C. The accused denied the charges and claimed for trial. The prosecution produced witnesses. The statement of accused-appellant was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. After conclusion of trial, the trial court passed judgment and order dated 29.08.1997 acquitting the accused-appellant for the offence under Section 302 I.P.C. but convicted him for the offence under Section 325 of I.P.C and sentenced him as indicated above. Aggrieved by judgment of conviction and sentence dated 29.08.1997, the accused-appellant has preferred this criminal appeal. [2025:RJ-JP:40317] (3 of 6) [CRLA-407/1997] 4. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that no appeal has been filed by the State against the acquittal of the accused- appellant for the offence under Section 302 IPC and instant appeal has been filed by the accused-appellant against his conviction and sentence for the offence under Section 325 IPC. He further submits that he does not wish to press instant criminal appeal in respect of judgment of conviction passed by the trial court and prefers to make submissions on the point of sentence only. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant also submits that incident in the present case took place way back in the year 1994 i.e. more than 31 years ago; appellant was 19 years of age at the time of incident and now he is around 50 years old and facing agony of trial since last more than 31 years; appellant belongs to poor strata of society and remained in police and judicial custody for a period of around two months and seventeen days and there is no previous conviction recorded against the appellant, therefore, he prays that ends of justice would meet if a lenient view is taken in the matter and sentence of imprisonment awarded to the appellant is reduced to the period already undergone by him. 7. Learned counsel for the accused-appellant has relied upon the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in ‘Karthick & Ors. Vs. The State represented by Inspector of Police, Kancheepuram District, Tamil Nadu’ in Criminal Appeal No. 543/2020 arising out of SLP (Criminal) No. 2040 of 2020, decided on 26.08.2020, in the case of ‘State of Uttar Pradesh vs. Tribhuwan and Ors.’ reported in AIR 2017 SC 5249 and the [2025:RJ-JP:40317] (4 of 6) [CRLA-407/1997] judgment passed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of ‘Jagdish and Ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan’ reported in 1989 (2) WLN 583. 8. Per contra, learned Government Advocate while opposing the appeal, submits that looking to the overall facts and circumstances of the case and the well reasoned speaking order passed by the trial court, sentence awarded by the trial court cannot be said to be disproportionate. 9. I have considered the arguments advanced at the Bar and have gone through impugned judgment and record of the case. 10. Since the appeal against conviction of accused-appellant- Pinki Alias Lakhan Singh is not pressed and after perusing the record, nothing is noticed which requires interference in the finding of guilt reached by the trial court, this Court does not wish to interfere in the judgment of conviction of accused-appellant- Pinki Alias Lakhan Singh. Accordingly, the judgment of conviction passed by the trial court against accused-appellant- Pinki Alias Lakhan Singh is maintained. 11. As far as question of sentence is concerned, after perusing judgment and order impugned and considering the submissions of learned counsel for the parties; appellant was incarcerated for sometime during investigation & trial and is facing the trial since last more than 31 years and no evidence regarding previous conviction of the appellant is produced on record, this Court is of the opinion that no fruitful purpose would be served by sending him to jail now. [2025:RJ-JP:40317] (5 of 6) [CRLA-407/1997] 12. This Court is conscious of the judgments rendered in Alister Anthony Pareira Vs. State of Maharashtra : (2012) 2 SCC 648 and Haripada Das Vs. State of W.B. : (1998) 9 SCC 678, wherein, the Hon'ble Apex Court observed as under:- Alister Anthony Pareira (Supra) “There is no straitjacket formula for sentencing an accused on proof of crime. The courts have evolved certain principles: 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.” Haripada Das (Supra) “…considering the fact that the respondent had already undergone detention for some period and the case is pending for a pretty long time for which he had suffered both financial hardship and mental agony and also considering the fact that he had been released on bail as far back as on 17-1-1986, we feel that the ends of justice will be met in the facts of the case if the sentence is reduced to the period already undergone…” 13. Consequently, the judgment of conviction dated 29.08.1997 passed by the learned trial court against the appellant is affirmed but the quantum of sentence awarded by the trial court is modified and the sentence awarded to the accused-appellant by the trial Court for the offence under Section 325 IPC is reduced to the period already undergone by him, which would be sufficient and justifiable to serve the interest of justice. The appellant is on bail. He need not to surrender. His bail bonds are discharged. 14. The appeal stands disposed of accordingly. [2025:RJ-JP:40317] (6 of 6) [CRLA-407/1997] 15. A copy of this order along with record be sent to the trial court forthwith. (BHUWAN GOYAL),J Ritu/27