Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Durga Ram vs State on 26 April, 2022
Bench: Pushpendra Singh Bhati
(1 of 4) [CRLA-426/1994]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 426/1994
Durga Ram
----Appellant
Versus
State of Rajasthan
----Respondent
For Appellant(s) : Mr. LD Khatri
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Arun Kumar, PP
HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI
Order
26/04/2022
1. In the wake of instant surge in COVID - 19 cases and spread
of its highly infectious Omicron variant, abundant caution is being
maintained, while hearing the matters in the Court, for the safety
of all concerned.
2. This criminal appeal under Section 374 Cr.P.C. has been
preferred claiming the following reliefs:
"It is therefore most humbly and respectfully prayed that the
appeal may be allowed and the judgment and order dated
19.08.1994 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Jaisalmer
in Sessions Case No.5/94 may kindly be set aside and the
appellant may be acquitted for the charges under Sec.376/511
I.P.C."
3. The matter pertains to an incident which occurred in the year
1993 and the present appeal has been pending since the year
1994.
(Downloaded on 29/04/2022 at 08:18:23 PM)
(2 of 4) [CRLA-426/1994]
4. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that this Criminal
Appeal has been preferred against the impugned judgment dated
19.08.1994, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Jaisaslmer in
Sessions Case 5/94 whereby the appellant was convicted for the
offences under Sections 376 read with Section 511 IPC and
sentenced to undergo 05 years R.I. and a fine of Rs. 1,000/- in
default of payment of which he was ordered to further undergo 15
months S.I.
5. Counsel for the appellant submits that the incident happened
on 11.09.1993 when the prosecutrix was going with her daughter
to her fields and there an attempt to rape with her was made by
present appellant. Counsel for the appellant further submits that
her husband-Fusa Ram and neighbour Pappu Ram came there
whereupon the appellant ran away.
6. Counsel for the appellant submits that there is no brutality or
any kind of medical evidence which could corroborate the attempt
to commit rape. Counsel for the appellant further submits that the
statement of husband and neighbour are not that of eye-
witnesses, although, they came at the place but on seeing them
the accused ran away.
7. Learned counsel for the appellant further submits that the
sentence so awarded to the appellant was however suspended by
this Hon'ble Court, vide order dated 07.11.1994 passed in S.B.
Criminal Misc. Bail (Suspension of Sentence) No.413/1994.
8. Learned counsel for the appellant, however, makes a limited
submission that without making any interference on
merits/conviction, the sentence awarded to the present appellant
(Downloaded on 29/04/2022 at 08:18:23 PM)
(3 of 4) [CRLA-426/1994]
may be substituted with the period of sentence already undergone
by him.
9. Learned Public Prosecutor opposes the same.
10. This Court on conjoint consideration of the incident being of
11.09.1993, the medical evidence not indicating any brutality, so
called attempt having not been proved by any independent
witness and also the husband and neighbour's evidence being
shaky, is inclined to allow prayer of the appellant to substitute the
sentence awarded with the sentence already undergone.
11. This Court is conscious of the judgments rendered in,
Alister Anthony Pareira Vs. State of Maharashtra (2012) 2
SCC 648 and Haripada Das Vs. State of W.B. (1998) 9 SCC
678 wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court observed as under:-
Alister Anthony Pareira (Supra)
"There is no straitjacket formula for sentencing an accused
on proof of crime. The courts have evolved certain
principles: twin objective of the sentencing policy is
deterrence and correction. What sentence would meet the
ends of justice depends on the facts and circumstances of
each case and the court must keep in mind the gravity of
the crime, motive for the crime, nature of the offence and all
other attendant circumstances."
Haripada Das (Supra)
"...considering the fact that the respondent had already
undergone detention for some period and the case is
pending for a pretty long time for which he had suffered
both financial hardship and mental agony and also
considering the fact that he had been released on bail as far
back as on 17-1-1986, we feel that the ends of justice will
be met in the facts of the case if the sentence is reduced to
the period already undergone..."
(Downloaded on 29/04/2022 at 08:18:23 PM)
(4 of 4) [CRLA-426/1994]
12. In light of the limited prayer made on behalf of the appellant,
and keeping in mind the aforementioned precedent laws and facts
of the case, the present appeal is partly allowed. Accordingly,
while maintaining the appellant's conviction under Sections 376
read with Section 511 IPC, as above, the sentence awarded to him
is reduced to the period already undergone by him. The appellant
is on bail. He need not surrender. His bail bonds stand discharged
accordingly.
13. All pending applications stand disposed of. Record of the
learned court below be sent back forthwith.
(DR.PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI), J.
45-nirmala/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
