Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Ram Chandra vs State on 13 May, 2022
Bench: Pushpendra Singh Bhati
(1 of 4) [CRLA-94/1995]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 94/1995
Ram Chandra
----Appellant
Versus
State
----Respondent
For Appellant(s) : Mr. N.K. Rastogi
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Arun Kumar, PP
HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI
Judgment
13/05/2022
1. This criminal appeal under Section 374 (2) Cr.P.C. has been
preferred claiming the following reliefs:
"It is, therefore, prayed that the appeal may kindly be allowed,
and the appellant be acquitted from the charges and judgment
and sentence passed by the trial court be quashed."
2. The matter pertains to an incident which occurred in the year
1994 and the present appeal has been pending since the year
1996.
3. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that this Criminal
Appeal has been preferred against the impugned judgment dated
28.02.1995 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge,
Chittorgarh in Sessions Case No.154/1994 whereby the appellant
was convicted for the offence under Section 376 IPC and
sentenced to undergo five years R.I. and a fine of Rs. 100/-, in
(Downloaded on 20/05/2022 at 08:02:16 PM)
(2 of 4) [CRLA-94/1995]
default of payment of which he was ordered to further undergo
one month's R.I.
4. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that a report was
submitted on 10.05.1994 before the police regarding the offence,
which had taken place on 06.05.1994. The allegation is that the
prosecutrix was guarding the crops in the field when the appellant
committed forcible rape upon her by threatening her with an axe.
Learned counsel further submits that there are gross discrepancies
in the statements of the witnesses so much so that neither any
injury has been proved nor any kind of FSL report has been
brought on record.
5. Learned counsel also submits that there is no kind of medical
or scientific evidence which could corroborate the statement of the
prosecutrix. Learned counsel further submits that all the
witnesses, who deposed, were the trusted witnesses and the delay
of four days was not explained. Learned counsel has also taken
this Court towards the statement rendered by the prosecutrix
under Section 161 Cr.P.C. Learned counsel further submits that the
doctor was not examined, and thus, even though the allegation of
the prosecutrix is there, but a serious shadow has been cast upon
the prosecution case.
6. Learned counsel for the appellant has further taken this
Court towards the version of the medical jurist report, which did
not suggest any injuries on any part of the body of the
prosecutrix; the opinion of medical jurist was reserved till receipt
of FSL report, but the FSL report has not been put on record.
7. Learned counsel however, submits that the sentence so
awarded to the appellant was suspended by this Hon'ble Court,
(Downloaded on 20/05/2022 at 08:02:16 PM)
(3 of 4) [CRLA-94/1995]
vide order dated 15.03.1995 passed in S.B. Criminal Misc. Bail No.
94/1995.
8. Learned counsel makes a limited submission that without
making any interference on merits/conviction, the sentence
awarded to the present appellant may be substituted with the
period of sentence already undergone by him.
9. Learned Public Prosecutor opposes the same.
10. 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..."
11. This Court finds that the loopholes, which have arrived in the
prosecution story due to non-examination of doctor and non-
production of FSL, are vital in nature particularly, when the fact of
(Downloaded on 20/05/2022 at 08:02:16 PM)
(4 of 4) [CRLA-94/1995]
the prosecutrix version need to be corroborated. The medical
jurist report initially did not have any evidence of any injury and
the site in question also did not suggest any circumstances of
rape. The witnesses are all closed to the prosecutrix and the other
facts which are on record including posture of the prosecutrix
create doubt in the mind of the Court.
12. This Court also finds that the doctor was not examined; the
FSL report was not produced before the learned trial court and
there are no injuries on the person.
13. 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 Section 376 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.
14. All pending applications stand disposed of. Record of the
learned court below be sent back forthwith.
(DR.PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI), J.
28-Zeeshan
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
