Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Hansraj vs State Of Rajasthan on 1 August, 2022
Bench: Pushpendra Singh Bhati
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 642/2022
Hansraj S/o Sh. Sahabram Jat, Aged About 52 Years, Vill. 6 Hh,
Ps Chunawad, Teh. And Dist. Sri Ganganagar, Raj. (At Present
Lodged In Central Jail, Sri Ganganagar).
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Indra Raj Choudhary
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Arun Kumar PP
Mr. Pankaj Kumar Gupta
HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI
Order
Reserved on 28/07/2022
Pronounced on 01/08/2022
1. Heard learned counsel for the parties on S.B. Criminal
Misc. Application for Suspension of Sentence No.205/2022.
2. In nutshell, the facts of the case are that on 19.06.1998, the
alleged incident happened, where a minor girl aged about 5-6
years and her mother both were sexually assaulted by the present
applicant-petitioner.
3. Learned counsel for the applicant-petitioner submitted that
due to inclusion of Section 377 IPC, the case was sent to the
Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate No.2, Sriganganagar ('trial
court'), who after conclusion of the trial, convicted and sentenced
the present applicant-petitioner vide the impugned judgment
dated 06.09.2014; the said judgment, upon appeal, was also
affirmed by the learned appellate court vide judgment dated
03.06.2022. Learned counsel however, submitted that there is a
grave technical error in the matter, as the previous statements
(Downloaded on 04/08/2022 at 08:23:49 PM)
(2 of 3) [CRLR-642/2022]
recorded, including the statement of the applicant-petitioner under
Section 313 Cr.P.C., were prior to transferring of the case to the
learned trial court.
4. Learned counsel for the applicant-petitioner further
submitted that upon alteration of charges, fresh opportunity for
rendering the evidence ought to have been given by the learned
trial court.
5. Learned counsel for the applicant-petitioner relied upon the
following judgments:
(a) R. Rachaiah Vs. Home Secretary, Bangalore, (2016) 12 SCC
172;
(b) Gopi Nath Ghosh Vs. State of West Bengal, AIR 1984 SC 237;
(c) Ram Nath Singh Vs. State of Bihar, 1974 Cri.L.J. 1376;
(d) S. Harnam Singh Vs. The State (Delhi Admn.), AIR 1976 SC
2140 and;
(e) State of A.P. Vs. Ettekapalli Yellamma @ Yellamma @ Nayomi
& Anr., (2014) 0 Supreme (AP) 372.
6. On the other hand, learned Public Prosecutor as well as
learned counsel for the respondent opposed the aforesaid
submissions made on behalf of the applicant-petitioner.
7. Learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the
learned trial court has observed that the fresh evidence was not
required, because the evidence remained the same, even when
the key witnesses were re-examined, and thus, any fresh
examination was not called for, in the interest of timely and
effective conclusion of the trial.
8. Learned counsel for the respondent further submitted that it
is a delicate and sensitive case, where a minor girl aged 5-6 years
has been sexually assaulted and her mother too has been sexually
(Downloaded on 04/08/2022 at 08:23:49 PM)
(3 of 3) [CRLR-642/2022]
assaulted by the present applicant-petitioner, which is proved by
the prosecution beyond all reasonable doubt by placing sufficient
evidence on record before the learned trial court, and thus, due to
mere technicalities, the sentence awarded to the applicant-
petitioner by the learned court below does not deserve to be
suspended by this Court.
9. After hearing learned counsel for the parties as well as
perusing the record of the case, alongwith the judgments cited at
the Bar, this Court is of the firm opinion that on count of some
technicality, more particularly, when the evidence is complete and
when the crime is against a minor girl, that too, aged 5-6 years,
the sentence cannot be suspended. This Court is also satisfied
with the reasoning given by the learned trial court that the fresh
deposition was not required, as the evidence stood where it was,
when the earlier trial took place. Thus, the learned trial court has
rightly drawn a conclusion that the fresh depositions, including
deposition of the present applicant-petitioner under Section 313
Cr.P.C. was not called for.
10. The judgments cited by learned counsel for the applicant-
petitioner do not render any assistance to the case of the present
applicant-petitioner.
11. In view of the above, this Court is not inclined to suspend
the sentence awarded to the applicant-petitioner by the learned
court below.
12. Consequently, the application for suspension of sentence is
dismissed.
(DR.PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI), J.
SKant/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
