Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2007 DIGILAW 2243 (RAJ)

Jagga v. State

2007-11-23

DEO NARAYAN THANVI

body2007
JUDGMENT 1. - This is an appeal against the judgment of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Barmer dated 08.08.1988 whereby, he convicted the accused appellant under Section 376 read with 511 IPC and Section 457 IPC and was sentenced to five years rigorous imprisonment under Section 376 IPC read with Section 511 IPC and a fine of Rs. 5000/-, in default to undergo one year's imprisonment. He was sentenced to three years imprisonment under Section 457 IPC and a fine of Rs. 500/-, in default to undergo six months rigorous imprisonment. Both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. 2. The charge against the accused was that on the intervening night of 1st and 2nd May, 1988, the accused trespassed the house of Padma and attempted to commit rape with her. A report of this incident was lodged by Mst. Padma next day at Police station Dhorimanna. 3. After investigation, the police filed the challan. The accused was charged under Section 376/511 IPC and 457 IPC to which he pleaded not guilty. The prosecution examined eight witnesses. The statement of the accused was recorded under Section 313 Cr.PC. He produced two witnesses in his defence. After hearing the arguments, the learned trial Judge convicted the accused as above. 4. It has been contended by the learned counsel for the accused appellant that the incident is 20 years old. The accused is a tribal agriculturist and has only attempted to commit rape. He has remained in custody from 02.05.88 to 12.07.88. Therefore, ends of justice will meet, if he is sentenced to the period already undergone. 5. Having taken into consideration the submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellant, I feel that it will not be proper to send the accused again behind the bars. 6. Consequently, this appeal is partly allowed. While maintaining the conviction of the accused appellant under Section 376/511 IPC and 457 IPC, he is sentenced to the period already undergone. However, the fine imposed on the accused appellant under both the Sections is maintained.Appeal partly allowed. *******