[2025:RJ-JP:40264] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 423/2005 1. Hargyan (Died) son of Magalram Gurjar, 2. Layakram son of Mangalram Gurjar, 3. Mahesh Kumar son of Mangalram Gurjar Residents of Village Alipur, P.S. Mundawar, District Alwar. ----Appellants Versus State of Rajasthan Through Public Prosecutor. ----Respondent For Appellant(s) : Ms. Aradhana Swami, Adv. For Respondent(s) For Complainant : : Mr. Manvendra Singh, PP Mr. Vishal Gurjar, Adv. for Mr. H.P. Singh, Adv. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRAVEER BHATNAGAR Order Reserved on :: 27/0 8/2025 Pronounced on :: 06 /10/2025 1. The matter pertains to an incident which occurred in the year 2001 and the present criminal appeal is pending since the year 2005. 2. The criminal appeal filed under Sections 374 of Cr.P.C. has been preferred against the judgment dated 15.04.2005, passed by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge (Fast Track) Kishangarbas, Alwar in Sessions Case No.42/2003, whereby the learned Court has convicted and sentenced the accused-appellants as under:- Under Section 447 of IPC :- Fifteen days simple imprisonment alongwith fine of Rs.100/- each and in default of payment of fine, [2025:RJ-JP:40264] (2 of 7) [CRLA-423/2005] further ordered to undergo 2 days simple imprisonment. Under Section 323/34 of IPC:- Two months rigorous imprisonment alongwith fine of Rs.200/- each and in default of payment of fine, further ordered to undergo 4 days simple imprisonment. Under Section 324/34 of IPC:- Six months rigorous imprisonment along with fine of Rs.400/- each and in default of payment of fine, further ordered to undergo 8 days rigorous imprisonment. Under Section 325/34 of IPC:- Two years rigorous imprisonment along with fine of Rs.2000/- each and in default of payment of fine, further ordered to undergo two months rigorous imprisonment. Under Section 326/34 of IPC:- Three years rigorous imprisonment along with fine of Rs.5000/- each and in default of payment of fine, further ordered to undergo four months rigorous imprisonment. All sentences shall run concurrently. 3. The brief facts of the case are that a report was lodged by one Bhularam on 16.12.2001, mentioning that he along with his niece Mukhram reached at the farm to give water in their mustered field where Hargyan, Layakram, Mahesh and Dharamveer came with lathi and pharsi and started giving beating to them by which they had sustained injuries. This fact was disclosed by the complainant while being hospitalized and on that basis an F.I.R. No.387/2001 was lodged at Police Station Mundawar, District Alwar against the accused-appellants for the offences under Sections 447, 323, 324, 325, 326 and 308 I.P.C. Thereafter, the trial Court framed charges under Sections 447, [2025:RJ-JP:40264] (3 of 7) [CRLA-423/2005] 323, 324, 325, 326 & 308 of IPC. The accused appellants denied the charges and claimed to be tried. During the trial, prosecution examined 11 witnesses and produced various documents in support of its case. The accused, upon being confronted with the prosecution allegations, in their statements under Section 313 Cr.P.C., denied the allegations and claimed to be innocent. The trial Court, after hearing both the parties, passed an order of conviction against the accused-appellants for the offences under Sections 447, 323/34, 324/34, 325/34 and 326/34 IPC vide order dated 15.04.2005. 4. Being aggrieved from the order dated 15.04.2005, the accused-appellants have filed the present appeal before this Court. 5. Learned counsel for the appellants has stated that one of the appellants- Hargyan S/o Magalram Gurjar, has died and proceedings against him are abated. Learned counsel for the appellants further submits that the sentence so awarded to the appellants- Layakram and Mahesh Kumar were suspended by this Court vide order dated 03.05.2005. 6. The prosecution claims that the appellants trespassed into the complainant's agricultural field with the intent to dispossess him and when the complainant resisted, the appellants allegedly injured Mukhram and Bhularam and the occurrence was seen by witnesses PW.10 Jassu and PW.11 Mahendra. It is strongly argued that the trial court erred in concluding that the injuries sustained to the appellants were a result of right to self-defence, exercised by the complainant party. However, the evidence on record [2025:RJ-JP:40264] (4 of 7) [CRLA-423/2005] indicates that the injuries sustained by appellant Layakram was a result of free fight occurred between the parties. Moreover, the grievous injury inflicted with a sharp weapon on PW.6 Bhularam forearm has been clearly attributed to the absconding accused Dharamveer, despite this, the trial court convicted the appellants under sections 326/34 of the Indian Penal Code, which contradicts the evidence presented during the trial. 7. Alternatively, it is also prayed by the learned counsel for the appellants that the appellant- Mahesh Kumar have remained in custody for a period of 14 days and for the remaining sentence they may be given benefit of sentence already undergone. 8. Per Contra, the learned Counsel for the respondent and the learned Public Prosecutor justify the conviction and sentence imposed on the appellants. 9. Heard & scanned the record. 10. It is not denied that PW.5 Mukhram and PW.6 Bhularam sustained 15 and 8 injuries respectively and the injury sustained on the forearm was grievous and was caused by using a sharp weapon. The presence of the appellants at the place of occurrence is also undisputed and not denied. 11. During the proceedings, independent witnesses PW.10 Jassu, and PW.11 Mahendra, provided clear support for the prosecution's case. They testified that the appellants entered the complainant's field and caused harm to witnesses PW.5 Mukhram and PW.6 Bhularam. The claim of the appellants' that they were unarmed and had actually sustained injuries is difficult to believe as the independent witnesses strongly countered this assertion. They [2025:RJ-JP:40264] (5 of 7) [CRLA-423/2005] corroborated the injured witnesses' accounts, stating that appellant Layakram was injured due to falling into a ditch during a struggle with the injured parties. The injured witnesses explained that they had to defend themselves and used lathi blows against Layakram to protect themselves from the assaults which they were facing. 12. The credibility of PW.10 Jassu's testimony has understandably come under scrutiny, particularly due to concerns about his relationship with the complainant's family. However, the witness has firmly denied any closeness with the injured individual. It's important to remember that a witness's account shouldn't be dismissed solely based on their past behaviour or familial ties with the injured party, especially when there is no substantial evidence contradicting their presence at the scene of the incident. Additionally, the cross-examination of key witnesses did not raise any doubts about the presence of the witnesses. 13. It's important to note that while the appellants filed a cross FIR claiming they were assaulted, the trial court ultimately acquitted the complainant. The court reasoned that Layakram injuries were likely the result of the injured parties exercising their right to self-defence and by falling into the ditch. Furthermore, it appears that the appellants hesitated to thoroughly question the investigating officer, PW.4 Rajveer Singh, who oversaw both cases, possibly due to concerns about not receiving a favourable response. 14. As a result, the claim that the injuries to the prosecution witnesses were the result of a sudden and free fight is negated. [2025:RJ-JP:40264] (6 of 7) [CRLA-423/2005] Instead, the prosecution has established that the appellants were the aggressors and trespassed on the complainant's peaceful possession. Therefore, on merits the appellants appeal is not maintainable. 15. The record shows that the appellant- Mahesh Kumar has undergone a sentence of 14 days and appellant- Layakram did not remain in custody for a single day. It is prayed that the benefit of sentence already undergone may be given to appellant-Mahesh Kumar and sentence passed against the appellant- Layakram may also be reduced and he may be enlarged on probation. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the matter of State of Punjab Vs. Dil Bahadur rendered in Criminal Appeal No.844/2023 SLP (Criminal) No.2984 of 2018 dated 28.03.2023 after referring to the judgments of State of M.P. Vs. Bablu 2014 (9) SCC 281 held as under: “The prime objective of criminal law is the imposition of adequate, just, proportionate punishment which is necessary with the gravity nature of crime and the manner in which the offence is committed. One should keep in mind the social interest and conscience of the society while considering the determinative factor of sentence with gravity of crime. The punishment should not be so lenient that it shocks the conscience of the society. It is therefore, the solemn duty of the Court to strike a proper balance while awarding the sentence as awarding the lesser sentence encourages any criminal and as a result of the same, the society suffers.” 16. Considering the facts of the present case, I am of the view that sentence awarded to accused-appellants under Sections 447, 323, 324, 325, 326 of IPC commensurate with the offence [2025:RJ-JP:40264] (7 of 7) [CRLA-423/2005] committed and there is no cogent reasons for the Court to reduce the sentence of the accused-appellants. 17. In view of the above, the present criminal appeal is dismissed. The accused-appellants are on bail. Their bail bonds and sureties are forfeited. They are directed to be taken into custody forthwith and sent to the concerned Jail to undergo the remaining period of their sentences. 18. All pending applications, if any, stand disposed of. Record of the learned court below be sent back forthwith for the compliance. (PRAVEER BHATNAGAR),J Ashwani Kr Srivastava /-20