Rajasthan High Court sets free two men in their 90s from 32-year-old case

“The prolonged pendency of the case and the anxiety undergone by the appellants during this time cannot be lost sight of,” the court said.

Background

The man were booked under the provisions of the IPC and the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act for allegedly being members of an unlawful assembly and criminal trespass on the complainant’s lawfully allotted and possessed land, and causing damage to his property.

The act, the court noted, stemmed from a “localised property dispute” rather than from any entrenched criminal tendency, and though unlawful, was deserving of condemnation.

Granting relief to the accused, the court also underlined the accused’s conduct of taking the law into their own hands and demolishing the construction, pointing out that it deserves clear judicial censure, and said, “disputes relating to property must be resolved strictly in accordance with law”.

The trial court convicted the accused in 1996. It was submitted that they remained on bail throughout the investigation, trial and pendency of the appeal.

‘Advanced age, law abiding citizen’

The court noted the advanced age of the accused person and found that this was their “first and solitary criminal case” with no subsequent criminal involvement.

The court further observed, “It is also not in dispute that the appellants remained on bail throughout the trial and during the pendency of the appeal, did not misuse the liberty granted to them, and have undergone a few days of incarceration during the course of investigation and trial”.

Pointing to the settlement of the accused persons into society as “law-abiding citizens” over the years, the court held that directing them to undergo further imprisonment would serve no “useful purpose” but would cause “undue hardship” to their families.

Arguments

Appearing for the accused persons, advocate Chakrawarti Singh Rathore submitted that they have now attained advanced age and were suffering from various ailments relating to old age.

Rathore further pointed out that this was their “first and only criminal case”, and that they were now leading “peaceful lives” as responsible members of society and supporting their families.

Additional government advocate Rajesh Bhati, representing the state, on the contrary, prayed for dismissal of the appeal highlighting that the trial court’s order does not warrant interference as no perversity, illegality, or material infirmity had been shown.

He further argued that the sentence awarded was within the statutory framework and did not call for interference in appellate jurisdiction.