Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 1882 (RAJ)

Suresh Mali v. State of Rajasthan

2019-07-03

GOVERDHAN BARDHAR, SABINA

body2019
JUDGMENT : Sabina, J. 1. Appellant had faced trial qua commission of offence punishable under Section 363, 366, 376(2)(i) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as 'I.P.C.') and Section 5(m)/6 of The Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'). Trial Court vide judgment dated 27.04.2018 ordered the conviction of the appellant under Section 363, 366, 376(2)(i) of I.P.C. and Section 5(m)/6 of the Act. Vide order of even date appellant was sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life under Section 376(2)(i) of I.P.C. read with Section 5(m)/6 of the Act and fine of Rs. 20,000/- and in default of payment of fine, appellant was ordered to further undergo imprisonment for three months. For offence under Section 363 of I.P.C., appellant was sentenced to undergo imprisonment for three years and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/- and in default of payment of fine, appellant was ordered to further undergo imprisonment for one month. Under Section 366 of I.P.C., appellant was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years and to pay a fine of Rs. 20,000/- and in default of payment of fine, appellant was ordered to further undergo imprisonment for three months. Hence, the present appeal by the appellant. 2. Prosecution story, in brief, is that on 20.04.2015 at about 5.00/5:30 p.m. prosecutrix had gone to get eggs as required by the lady residing in the Luxmi Plaza. Prosecutrix met appellant on the way and he said that he would drop her at the house of her paternal grand-mother. Prosecutrix knew the appellant and went with him. However, appellant took the prosecutrix to his residence and raped her. 3. On the basis of the report lodged by the prosecutrix, formal FIR No. 169 dated 22.04.2015 was registered at Police Station, Jawahar Nagar, District Kota City under Section 376 IPC and Section 7/8 of the Act. 4. After completion of investigation and necessary formalities, challan was presented against the appellant. 5. Trial Court framed charges against the appellant under Section 363, 366, 376(2)(i) of the I.P.C. and Section 5(m)/6 of the Act. Appellant did not plead guilty and claimed trial. 6. In order to prove its case, prosecution examined eleven witnesses, during trial. 4. After completion of investigation and necessary formalities, challan was presented against the appellant. 5. Trial Court framed charges against the appellant under Section 363, 366, 376(2)(i) of the I.P.C. and Section 5(m)/6 of the Act. Appellant did not plead guilty and claimed trial. 6. In order to prove its case, prosecution examined eleven witnesses, during trial. Appellant when examined under Section 313 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as 'Cr.P.C.'), after the close of prosecution evidence, prayed that he had been falsely involved in this case. Parents of the prosecutrix were in the habit of falsely involving persons with the help of their daughters. 7. Appellant did not examine any witness in his defence. 8. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the prosecution had miserably failed to prove its case. Prosecutrix has levelled false allegation against the appellant. 9. Learned State counsel has opposed the appeal. 10. In the present case, prosecutrix is aged about 13/14 years. FIR was lodged on the basis of written complaint moved by the prosecutrix to the police. Statement of the prosecutrix was recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. 11. Prosecutrix was examined during trial as PW-4. During the trial prosecutrix deposed that she was residing on rent alongwith her parents at Bala Kund. Her mother was working in Luxmi Plaza. She also used to work with her mother in the said Plaza. On the day of occurrence, at about 5.00 p.m., she had gone to deliver eggs to Aunty. While she was going to Luxmi Plaza, she met the appellant on the way. Appellant told her that he would drop her in the house of her paternal grandmother. However, appellant took her to his house. She told the appellant that he should drop her at the house of her paternal grandmother, but appellant took her to the room in his house and raped her. Prosecutrix was cross-examined by the defence counsel but her testimony with regard to the commission of offence by the appellant could not be shattered. Prosecutrix was a minor girl, aged about 13/14 years at the time of the incident. From the testimony of the prosecutrix, it cannot be said that she had any reason to falsely involve the appellant in this case. Statement of the prosecutrix being natural, inspires confidence. Prosecutrix was a minor girl, aged about 13/14 years at the time of the incident. From the testimony of the prosecutrix, it cannot be said that she had any reason to falsely involve the appellant in this case. Statement of the prosecutrix being natural, inspires confidence. Medical evidence also does not lead to the inference that the prosecutrix was not telling the truth. 12. PW 1- Mahendra Meena and PW-2 Mona Meena (mother of the prosecutrix) have duly corroborated the statement of the prosecutrix. 13. Thus, in the present case, learned trial Court has rightly ordered the conviction of the appellant under Section 363, 366, 376(2)(i) of I.P.C. and Section 5(m)/6 of the Act. However, we are of the opinion that the sentence awarded to the appellant is liable to be reduced in view of the facts and circumstances of the case. 14. Accordingly, sentence of the appellant under Section 376(2)(i) I.P.C. read with Section 5(m)/6 of the Act, is reduced from imprisonment for life to rigorous imprisonment for ten years. The sentence qua fine is maintained. Sentence under Section 366 and 363 IPC is maintained. All the sentences shall run concurrently. Appeal stands disposed of accordingly.