Sujan Singh vs State
2022 Latest Caselaw 6102 Raj/2

      HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
                  BENCH AT JAIPUR

                S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 127/1986

Sujan Singh Son of Kalu, Resident of Kanwarpura, Police Station
Asnawar, District Jhalawar.
(At present in District Jail, Jhalawar)
                                                          ---Accused-Appellant
                                   Versus
The State of Rajasthan
                                                                ----Respondent

For Appellant(s)         :     Mr. Rinesh Gupta, Adv.
                               Mr. Anurag Pareek, Adv.
                               Mr. Tanay Jain, Adv.
For Respondent(s)        :     Mr. Mangal Singh Saini, PP

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA

Order

ORDER RESERVED ON :: 22.08.2022

ORDER PRONOUNCED ON :: 08.09.2022

Appellant has filed the appeal challenging the order dated

11.02.86 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Jhalawar in

Sessions Case No.81/85 whereby the appellant was convicted

under Section 376 IPC for seven years rigorous imprisonment and

a fine of Rs.250/- in default of payment of fine six months

rigorous imprisonment.

Prosecution story, in brief, is that complainant Panchi Bai is a

married woman and having three children. Appellant's house was

also near to the prosecutrix house. When prosecutrix was going to

field on 27.08.84 in the afternoon, appellant showed her Rs.5/-

note and told to take the same but she had denied. After that,

(2 of 4) [CRLA-127/1986]

appellant caught the prosecutrix and committed rape with her. On

her crying, Gheesa and Nanda came at that time and appellant

ran away.

After completion of investigation and necessary formalities,

charge-sheet was filed against the appellant.

Charges were framed against the appellant under Section

376 IPC and prosecution examined 13 witnesses to prove its case.

Appellant was examined under Section 313 Code of Criminal

Procedure, 1973 prayed that he was innocent and falsely

implicated in this case and had not produced the defence witness.

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that trial court has

erred in convicting the accused-appellant under Section 376 IPC

and submitted that independent witnesses Gheesa and Nanda had

not supported the story of prosecution. Learned counsel for the

appellant also submits that FIR was lodged after a delay of 29

hours. Learned counsel for the appellant also submits that

prosecutrix is a major lady and she had not received any injury on

her private parts. Without her consent, rape could not be

committed. Learned counsel for the appellant also submits that in

Naksha Mauka, no sign of damage of crop was reflected. Learned

counsel for the appellant also submits that if appellant wanted to

commit rape with her then no occasion arose to show her Rs.5/-

note. Learned counsel for the appellant also submits that

statement of PW-2 Prabhu Lal who is husband of the prosecutrix is

not reliable. Learned counsel for the appellant alternatively prayed

that the appellant is facing trauma of trial since 1985. If court

comes to the conclusion and upheld the conviction then appellant

(3 of 4) [CRLA-127/1986]

be released on already undergone. So, order of the trial court be

set aside and appellant be acquitted.

Learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the arguments

advanced by learned counsel for the appellant and submitted that

order of the trial court does not suffer from any illegality or

infirmity. Evidence of the prosecutrix is sterling worth, so no

corroboration is required. So, the appeal be dismissed.

I have considered the arguments advanced by learned

counsel for the appellant as well as learned Public Prosecutor.

After perusing the judgment of learned trial court and

considering the oral and documentary evidence, I do not find any

illegality or infirmity in the order of the trial court.

In the present case, appellant remained in custody almost

two years, I deem it just and proper to reduce the sentence of

imprisonment awarded to the appellant from seven years rigorous

imprisonment to the period of imprisonment already undergone by

the appellant in confinement.

This criminal appeal is accordingly partly allowed. It is

ordered that the sentence of imprisonment passed by the trial

court is reduced from seven years rigorous imprisonment to the

period of imprisonment already undergone by the appellant in

confinement but the amount of fine shall remain unchanged. The

accused-appellant shall deposit the fine amount awarded by the

trial court within one month from today.

In view of the provisions of Section 437-A Cr.P.C., appellant

namely Sujan Singh Son of Kalu is directed to furnish a personal

bond in the sum of Rs.25,000/-, and a surety in the like amount,

before the Registrar (Judicial) of this Court, which shall be

(4 of 4) [CRLA-127/1986]

effective for a period of six months, with stipulation that in the

event of Special Leave Petition being filed against the judgment or

on grant of leave, the appellant aforesaid, on receipt of notice

thereof, shall appear before the Supreme Court.

(NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA),J Jatin/01

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)