Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 764 (RAJ)

Rajendra Kumar v. State of Rajasthan

2016-05-26

KAILASH CHANDRA SHARMA

body2016
JUDGMENT : Kailash Chandra Sharma, J. 1. This appeal has been preferred against the judgment and order on sentence dated 29.3.2012, passed by the learned Special Judge (Women Atrocities & Dowry Cases), Sriganganagar in Sessions Case No. 11/9 (8/9) whereby the accused-appellant was convicted for the offences under Sections 363, 366 & 376/511 IPC and was sentenced as under:- Under Section 363 IPC-7 years' rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 1,000/- in default thereof to further undergo three month's simple imprisonment. Under Section 366 IPC- 10 years' rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 2,000/- in default thereof to further undergo six month's simple imprisonment. Under Section 376/511 IPC-5 years' rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 1,000/- in default thereof to further undergo three month's simple imprisonment. 2. All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. Brief facts of the case are that on 26.12.2008, one Bhoop Ram lodged a report before SHO, Sadulsahar, District Sriganganagar. According to this report, on 26.12.2008 at 9 a.m. his niece Kavita aged about 9 years was going to school along with his nephew Deepu. Bhoop Ram was also following then on his bicycle. When they were passing through the field, one Rajendra Kim S/o Lal Chand took away her niece aside a filed. His nephew shouted for help After hearing him shouting, Bhoop Ram reached towards him and inquired about the matter, then he told that Rajendra Kumar took away Kavita. He along with Deepu went there and saw that accused-appellant was trying to commit rape with his niece. On the basis of the said report, an First Information Report No. 377/2008 at Police Station Sadulsahar on 26.12.2008 for the offences under Sections 376/511 IPC was registered and investigation commenced. 3. After completion of investigation, a charge-sheet was filed against the accused-appellant Rajendra Kumar for the offences under Sections 363, 366 and 376/511 IPC by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Class I, Sadulshahar, District Sriganganagar. After necessary compliance, the learned Judicial Magistrate committed the case to the learned Sessions. Judge, Sriganganagar. 4. On 18.6.2009, learned Sessions Judge transferred this case to the Special Court of Women Atrocities and Dowry Cases, Sriganganagar. After hearing, learned Additional Sessions Judge framed the charges for the offence under Sections 363, 366, & 376/511 IPC against the accused-appellant but he denied the charges and claimed trial. 5. Judge, Sriganganagar. 4. On 18.6.2009, learned Sessions Judge transferred this case to the Special Court of Women Atrocities and Dowry Cases, Sriganganagar. After hearing, learned Additional Sessions Judge framed the charges for the offence under Sections 363, 366, & 376/511 IPC against the accused-appellant but he denied the charges and claimed trial. 5. In support of this case, the prosecution examined as many as eleven witnesses. 6. Accused-appellant was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. but he did not examine any witness in his defence. 7. After hearing both the parties, learned trial court convicted and sentenced the accused-appellant for the offences under Sections 363, 3664 376/511 IPC. 8. Aggrieved by the impugned judgment of conviction and order or sentence, accused-appellant preferred this appeal before this Court which was admit for hearing on 27.12.2012. 9. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 10. During the course of argument, learned counsel for the accused-appellant submitted that he does not wish to argue on the conviction of the accused-appellant but he limits his prayer regarding the sentence awarded by the learned trial court. In this regard, learned counsel for the accused-appellant submitted that the quantum of sentence passed by the learned Sessions Judge is too much, therefore, he prays to reduce the quantum of sentence looking to the facts and circumstances of this case. 11. Learned Public Prosecutor opposed the prayer of the learned counsel for the accused-appellant and submitted that learned trial court after hearing both the parties, passed the order on sentence which is adequate and no interference is required in the same. 12. I have considered the arguments of both the parties. 13. In view of the above discussion the conviction of the accused-appellant for the offences under Sections 363, 366 & 376/511 IPC is confirmed. 14. So far as the sentence awarded to the accused-appellant for the offences under Section 363 IPC is concerned, the same is modified to the extent that accused-appellant will undergo five years' rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 1000/-. For the offence under Section 366 IPC, the accused appellant will undergo five years rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 1,000/-. For the offence under Section 376/511 IPC, the accused-appellant will undergo five years' rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 1000/-. 1000/-. For the offence under Section 366 IPC, the accused appellant will undergo five years rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 1,000/-. For the offence under Section 376/511 IPC, the accused-appellant will undergo five years' rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 1000/-. In default of payment of fine accused-appellant will undergo one month's additional rigorous imprisonment for each offence. The substantive sentences for all above offences will run concurrently. The period for which accused-appellant already remained in custody either police or judicial will be set-off in his substantive sentence. The appeal is partly allowed. A copy of this judgment be provided to the accused-appellant free of cost.