Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 2099 (RAJ)

Hardeep Singh v. State of Rajasthan

2010-12-20

KAILASH CHANDRA JOSHI

body2010
JUDGMENT 1. - Accused appellant Hardeep Singh s/o Bhajan Singh , has preferred this Criminal Jail appeal, against the judgment of conviction and the order of sentence dated 20.09.2006, passed by the learned Additional District & Sessions Judge (Fast Track), Hanumangarh, in Sessions Case No. 108/2005 whereby the accused appellant Hardeep Singh has been convicted for the commission of offence under section 376 and 450 IPC and sentenced him for the offence under section 376 IPC to seven years' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 20,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo two months' rigorous imprisonment and for the offence under section 450 IPC to three years' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1,000/-, and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo five days' rigorous imprisonment. Both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. 2. The brief facts of the case giving rise to this appeal are that on 03.10.2005, complainant Mani Devi lodged a report at Police Station, Hanumangarh City, stating that on 03.10.05, her daughter-in-law Kisturi Devi was alone at home and at about 2.00PM Hardeep Singh, after having consumed alcohol, came to her house and committed rape on Kisturi Devi. On the basis of this report, on 04.10.05, FIR No.494/2005 was registered and investigation commenced. 3. The police filed challan under section 450, 376 IPC in the court of learned Addl.Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hanumangarh, from where the case was committed to the court of sessions for trial. 4. The prosecution examined as many as 9 witnesses and got exhibited certain documents in support of its case. The trial court recorded the statement of the accused petitioner under section 313 Cr.P.C. The learned Additional District & Sessions Judge (Fast Track), Hanumangarh, vide order dated 20.09.2006 , convicted the accused petitioner Hardeep Singh under section 376 and 450 IPC and sentenced him as indicated above. 5. Dissatisfied by the order of the learned Additional District & Sessions Judge (Fast Track), Hanumangarh, dated 20.09.2006 ,the accused petitioner has preferred this criminal jail appeal. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant does not press the order of conviction recorded against the appellant by the learned trial court and only argued on the point of sentence only. The learned counsel for the appellant further contended that the accused is behind the bars w.e.f. 14.01.2005. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant does not press the order of conviction recorded against the appellant by the learned trial court and only argued on the point of sentence only. The learned counsel for the appellant further contended that the accused is behind the bars w.e.f. 14.01.2005. Thus, he has served more than 5 years' sentence and the age of the prosecutrix at the relevant date, was 22 years and no injuries were found on the body of the prosecutrix, so as to show any signs of struggle or resistance. The learned counsel prayed that the sentence of seven years may be reduced to five years. 7. Learned counsel for the appellant relied on the following judgments in support of his case: 1. Chhigan Lal v. State of Rajasthan & Ors., 2007(1) CJ (Raj.)Cr. 391 2. Ramotar v. State of Rajasthan, 2007 (1) CJ (Raj.) Cr. 239 3. Ramveer v. State of Rajasthan, 2007 (1) CJ (Raj.) Cr. 267 4. Ram Kumar v. State of Haryana, (2006) 4 SCC 347 5. Ravinder v. State of M.P., (2006) 9 SCC 590 6. State of Chhattisgarh v. Lekhram, 2006 DNJ (SC) 418 7. Ramotar v. State of Rajasthan, 2007 (1) CJ (Raj.) Cr. 239 8. In view of the judgment cited by the learned counsel for the appellant, it is a well settled proposition of law that for the commission of offence under section 376 (1), less than 7 years' imprisonment may be awarded for reasons to be recorded. In this case, as the age of the prosecutrix was 22 years and no signs of struggle or resistance were found on the body of the prosecutrix, therefore, looking to all the facts and circumstances of the case, the punishment of seven years is reduced to 5 years. 9. For offence under section 450 IPC, the sentence awarded by the learned trial court, is maintained. It is further ordered that both the substantive sentences shall run concurrently. The sentence of fine, as imposed by the learned trial court, is also maintained.The appeal is partly allowed as indicated above.Appeal partly allowed. *******