Delay of over three decades a mitigating factor, Rajasthan HC reduces sentence despite affirming guilt

Jaipur/Jodhpur: The Rajasthan High Court has held that the prosecution succeeded in proving beyond reasonable doubt that the appellants assaulted a public servant while he was discharging his official duties and caused grievous injury, warranting conviction under Sections 333, 353 and 341 of the Indian Penal Code. The Court, however, held that in view of the long passage of time since the incident and other mitigating circumstances, the substantive sentence deserved to be reduced.

Justice Farjand Ali recorded that the evidence on record, including the testimony of the complainant Viram Singh (PW-5), corroborated by other witnesses and documentary material, established the involvement of the appellants in the incident. The Court held that there was no perversity or material infirmity in the findings of the trial court warranting interference with the conviction.

These observations were made while partly allowing a criminal appeal filed by Hari Babu and Ramesh, challenging the judgment dated December 19, 1995 passed by the Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act Cases, Udaipur, in Sessions Case No.114/1991.

The case arose from an incident dated April 3, 1990, when a complaint was lodged by Viram Singh at Hathi Pol Police Station, Udaipur, leading to registration of an FIR under Sections 341 and 323 read with Section 34 IPC. During investigation, medical examination revealed that one of the injuries suffered by the complainant was grievous in nature. It was further found that the incident occurred while the complainant was in the discharge of his official duties, resulting in addition of charges under Sections 341, 353 and 333 IPC.

After trial, the Special Judge convicted both appellants under Section 333 read with Section 34 IPC and sentenced them to two years’ rigorous imprisonment with fine, along with convictions under Sections 353 and 341 IPC with lesser sentences, all directed to run concurrently.

Before the High Court, the learned Amicus Curiae contended that the prosecution failed to establish that the complainant was performing official duties at the relevant time and that the evidence did not prove intentional assault. The State opposed the appeal and supported the conviction.

The High Court, after reappraisal of the evidence, rejected the challenge to conviction and held that the prosecution had established the appellants’ guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The Court affirmed the findings of the trial court insofar as conviction was concerned.

On the question of sentence, the Court took note of the fact that the incident occurred in 1990 and that the appellants had faced criminal proceedings for more than three decades. The Court recorded that Hari Babu was 21 years of age and Ramesh was 45 years of age at the time of the incident, that neither had any prior criminal history, and that they had remained on bail throughout the proceedings without misuse of liberty.

Relying upon the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in Haripada Das vs State of West Bengal and Alister Anthony Pereira vs State of Maharashtra, the High Court held that the ends of justice would be met by reducing the substantive sentence to the period already undergone, which was approximately one month.

Accordingly, the criminal appeal was partly allowed. The conviction recorded by the trial court was affirmed, but the substantive sentence was reduced to the period already undergone. The appellants were admonished for their conduct and cautioned to maintain peace and adhere to the rule of law in future. All pending applications were disposed of.

Case Title
Hari Babu & Another vs State of Rajasthan

Case Number
S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 14/1996

Court
High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan, Jodhpur

Bench
Justice Farjand Ali

Date of Order
February 4, 2026

Advocates
For the appellants: Ms. Mansi Pipal, Amicus Curiae
For the respondent: Mr. N.S. Chandawat, Deputy Government Advocate