Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 2047 (RAJ)

Ramkaran v. State of Rajasthan

2012-10-01

SANDEEP MEHTA

body2012
JUDGMENT 1. - Heard counsel for the petitioners and the learned Public Prosecutor. Perused the order impugned. 2. Instant revision has been preferred by the petitioner challenging the order dated 7.x.2011 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Didwana in appeal whereby the appellate Court while dismissing the appeal preferred by the petitioners has confirmed the order dated 16.5.2009 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Didwana. 3. Counsel for the petitioner does not challenge the conviction of the petitioners but prays that looking to the fact that the incident is of the year 2006 and considering the fact that the petitioners are in jail since 3.7.2012 and considering the fact that the appeal filed by the petitioners was decided in absentia, he prays that the sentence awarded to the petitioners be reduced to the period already undergone by them. 4. Learned Public Prosecutor has vehemently opposed the confention of the learned counsel for the petitioners but prays that if this Court is considering reduction of the sentence awarded to the petitioner, then the amount of fine be enhanced appropriately and compensation be ordered to be paid to the aggrieved lady. 5. Having considering the facts and circumstances of the case and looking at the nature of allegations and taking into account the fact that the appeal filed by the petitioners has been decided in absentia and after going through the order impugned, this Court is of the opinion that the conviction of the petitioners cannot be called in question as the same is substantiated by the evidence available on record but having regard to the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case and after going through the material available on record, particularly the F.I.R. and the statement of the aggrieved girl Mst. 'R' and taking into consideration that the petitioners are in jail since nearly last three months, rather remanding the matter back to the appellate Court for fresh consideration of the appeal, the revision itself is considered on merits and whilst upholding the conviction of the petitioners, the sentence awarded to the petitioners are reduced and now the sentence of six months awarded to the petitioners for the offence under Section 354 I.P.C. shall be reduced to the period of three months. The sentences awarded to the petitioners for the offence under Sections 341 and 504/34 I.P.C. are maintained. The sentences awarded to the petitioners for the offence under Sections 341 and 504/34 I.P.C. are maintained. However, the amount of fine for the offence under Section 354 I.P.C. is enhanced to Rs. 2,000/- each, and in default of payment of fine the petitioners shall undergo two months S.I. The amount of fine upon being realised shall be disbursed to the aggrieved girl Mst. 'R'. 6. Resultantly, the revision succeeds in part. The orders dated 7.9.2011 and 16.5.2009 are hereby modified and whilst upholding the conviction of the petitioners, the sentences awarded to the petitioners for the offence under Section 354 I.P.C. are reduced and now the sentence of six months awarded to the petitioners for the offence under Section 354 I.P.C. shall be reduced to the period of three months. The sentences for the offence under Sections 341 and 504/34 I.P.C. are maintained. However, the amount of fine for the offence under Section 354 I.P.C. is enhanced to Rs. 2,000/-, and in default of payment of fine to undergo two months S.I. The amount of fine upon being realised shall be disbursed to the aggrieved girl Mst. R.Revision partly allowed. *******