Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Vajiya vs State on 1 July, 2022
Bench: Pushpendra Singh Bhati
(1 of 4) [CRLA-208/1990]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 208/1990
Vajiya son of Shri Daliya, by caste Bhil, resident of Manawato-Ka
Gudha, present - Sarhad Lapi, District Pali.
(At present confined in Sub-Jail, Bali.)
----Appellant
Versus
State of Rajasthan.
----Respondent
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Bhagat Dadhich &
Mr. K.C Sharma for Mr. Mridul Jain.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Abhishek Purohit, Addl.G.A.
HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI
Judgment
01/07/2022
1. This criminal appeal under Section 374(2) Cr.P.C. has been
preferred claiming the following reliefs:
"It is, therefore, respectfully prayed that the Appeal of the
Appellant may kindly be accepted and the judgment and order
dated 9.7.1990 of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bali,
may be set aside and the Appellant be ordered to be acquitted
and released forthwith."
2. The matter pertains to an incident which occurred in the year
1988 and the present appeal has been pending since the year
1990.
3. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that this Criminal
Appeal has been preferred against the impugned judgment dated
09.07.1990, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bali
in Sessions Case No.3/1989, whereby the appellant was convicted
(Downloaded on 08/07/2022 at 08:09:05 PM)
(2 of 4) [CRLA-208/1990]
for the offences under Sections 376 & 342 IPC and sentenced as
under :-
Sections Sentence
376 IPC Seven years' R.I. and a fine of Rs. 100/- default of
payment of which he was ordered to further undergo
15 days' R.I.
342 IPC Three months' R.I.
4. Learned counsel for the appellant has pointed out that the
incident is of 02.04.1988. Learned counsel further submits to the
help of the medical report that there were no injuries whatsoever
on the body of the prosecutrix. Learned counsel also submits that
the appellant has already undergone a custody of two years and
five months. Learned counsel further submits that there is an
inconsistency in the statement as well as the medical report,
which casts a shadow of doubt over the prosecution story.
5. Learned counsel for the appellant has also taken this Court
through the testimonies of the witnesses of PW-1 Kumari
Bhanwari, PW-2 Kisna, PW-3 Shanker, PW-4 Parta Ram, PW-5
Banshiya, PW-6 Dhulki, PW-7 Chena Ram, PW-8 Devi Singh, PW-9
Roopli, PW-10 Bhanwar Singh and PW-11 Dr. N.K. Sharma.
6. Learned counsel for the appellant also submits that there is
no medical report whatsoever to corroborate the stand of the
prosecutrix. Learned counsel further submits that though the
learned trial court has arrived at a conclusion of conviction, but in
fact the benefit of doubt had to be given to the present appellant
as there were contradictions in the statements rendered by the
prosecutrix as well as the other witnesses. However, learned
counsel for the appellant after making strong submissions on
(Downloaded on 08/07/2022 at 08:09:05 PM)
(3 of 4) [CRLA-208/1990]
merits submits that he only prays for a limited submissions of the
sentence be reduced to undergone in light of the fact that the
appellant has already undergone sentence of about two years and
five months, out of the total sentence awarded to him, which was
seven years.
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 12.10.1990 passed in S.B.
Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.215/1990.
8. Learned Public Prosecutor opposes the submissions.
9. 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 08/07/2022 at 08:09:05 PM)
(4 of 4) [CRLA-208/1990]
10. This Court on conjoint consideration of the fact that the
incident is of 1988 and the appeal itself is pending since 1990
whereas the appellant has undergone sentence of two years and
five months and there are discrepancies, which entitle the
appellant for leniency of reduction of sentence.
11. In light of the limited prayer made on behalf of the appellant,
and keeping in mind the aforementioned precedent laws, the
present appeal is partly allowed. Accordingly, while maintaining
the appellant's conviction under Sections 376 & 342 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.
12. All pending applications stand disposed of. Record of the
learned court below be sent back forthwith.
(DR.PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI), J.
1-Weekly/Zeeshan
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
