Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 95 (RAJ)

Chattar Singh v. State of Rajasthan

2020-01-09

SANDEEP MEHTA

body2020
ORDER : Sandeep Mehta, J. 1. The instant appeal under Section 374 (2) CrPC has been preferred by the appellants Chattar Singh and Kan Singh for assailing the judgment dated 18.08.1993 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Nimbaheda in Sessions Case 9/1992, whereby the appellants have been convicted and sentenced as under:- Chattar Singh Section 366 IPC Rigorous imprisonment of three years with a fine of Rs. 500/- and in default of payment of fine, further to undergo one month's imprisonment. Name of the appellant Offence for which convicted Sentence awarded Kan Singh Section 366 IPC Rigorous imprisonment of three years with a fine of Rs. 500/- and in default of payment of fine, further to undergo one month's imprisonment. Section 376 IPC Rigorous imprisonment of seven years with a fine of Rs. 1000/- and in default of payment of fine, further to undergo three months' imprisonment. 2. Mr. R.K. Charan, learned counsel representing the appellants, urged that ex facie on going through the statement of the prosecutrix Mst. 'M' (P.W.3) recorded on oath at the trial, it is clear that she did not level any allegation whatsoever that the appellant Kan Singh ever established any kind of physical relations with her or sexually assaulted her. He, thus, urges that the conviction of the appellant Kan Singh for the offence under Section 376 IPC is unsustainable in the eyes of law. He further submits that the incident took place way back in the year 1988. Both the appellants have remained in custody for some duration and as such, even for the offence under Section 366 IPC, the appellants deserve leniency on the aspect of sentence. He prayed that the sentence awarded to the appellant may be reduced to the period already undergone by them. 3. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor vehemently and fervently opposed the submissions advanced by the appellant's counsel. Nonetheless, he too is not in a position to dispute the fact that the entire prosecution case is based totally on the statement of the victim Mst. 'M'. 4. On going through the sworn testimony of the victim, it is clear that she stated that she was lured away by Chattar Singh and his wife and thereafter, she was forced to marry Kan Singh. 'M'. 4. On going through the sworn testimony of the victim, it is clear that she stated that she was lured away by Chattar Singh and his wife and thereafter, she was forced to marry Kan Singh. However, in this entire statement, other than making a bald aspersion that Kan Singh kept her as his wife, no allegation whatsoever was levelled by the victim that she was subjected to sexual intercourse by Kan Singh. In this view of the matter, ex facie, the prosecution case, which is totally based on the evidence of Mst. 'M' (P.W.3), lacks any substance regarding the charge under Section 376 IPC and the conviction of the appellant Kan Singh as recorded by the trial court for the said charge, thus, cannot be sustained. 5. Regarding the charge under Section 366 IPC, it is clear from a threadbare analysis of the victim's (Mst. 'M' - P.W.3) statement that Chattar Singh and his wife lured her and took her away in a car. She was taken to Village Dhanet, where Chattar Singh forcibly married her off to Kan Singh. Nothing was elicited in the cross-examination of the victim Mst. 'M', which can discredit the evidentiary worth of her allegation that she was lured by the accused persons and was taken to Dhanet, where she was forced to marry Kan Singh. Thus, the necessary ingredients of the offence under Section 366 IPC as alleged by the prosecution are duly made out against the appellants beyond all manner of doubt. The finding recorded by the trial court against the appellants in this regard is unimpeachable. 6. On going through the warrant of appellant Kan singh, it is clear that he has remained in custody only for a period of 13 days. The appellant Chattar Singh, who was about 40 years of age in the year 1993, has undergone imprisonment of about six months. Kan Singh, who forcibly married the victim, is the principal culprit of the case, thus, reducing his sentence to the period already undergone by him, i.e. 13 days, in my opinion, would not subserve the ends of justice. 7. Kan Singh, who forcibly married the victim, is the principal culprit of the case, thus, reducing his sentence to the period already undergone by him, i.e. 13 days, in my opinion, would not subserve the ends of justice. 7. In view of the discussion made hereinabove, while affirming the conviction of the appellants as recorded by the trial court for the charge under Section 366 IPC, the sentence awarded to the appellant Chattar Singh is reduced to the period already undergone by him and the sentence awarded to the appellant Kan Singh is reduced to six months' rigorous imprisonment. In addition thereto, both the accused shall pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/-. In default of payment of fine, each of the appellant shall further undergo one month's simple imprisonment. 8. So far as the conviction of the appellant Kan Singh under Section 376 IPC and the sentence awarded to him on that count is concerned, to that extent, the impugned judgment dated 18.08.1993 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Nimbaheda in Sessions Case 9/1992 is quashed and set aside. 9. The appeal is allowed in part in these terms.