Ajiya vs State (2023:Rj-Jd:24750)
2023 Latest Caselaw 5495 Raj

[2023:RJ-JD:24750]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 715/2003

Ajiya S/o Dharma Ji, by caste Meghwal, Resident of Arathwada, Tehsil Shivganj, District Sirohi (Rajasthan)

----Petitioner Versus The State of Rajasthan

----Respondent

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Shambhoo Singh Rathore For Respondent(s) : Mr. S.K. Bhati, P.P.

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FARJAND ALI

Order

02/08/2023

1. By way of filing the instant Criminal Revision Petition under

Section 397/401 of the CrPC challenge has been made to the

judgment dated 31.07.2003 passed by the learned Sessions

Judge, Sirohi in Criminal appeal No.46/2003, whereby the learned

appellate court while affirming the conviction of the petitioner for

the offence under Section 354 of the IPC recorded by the learned

Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Shivganj vide judgment dated

24.08.1998 in Criminal Regular Case No.85/1998, reduced the

sentence awarded for the said offence from 1 years' simple

imprisonment to 9 months' rigorous imprisonment and reduced

the fine amount from the Rs.5,000/- to Rs.3,000/-. However, the

sentence in case of default in payment of fine has been altered to

2 months' rigorous imprisonment from 1 month's simple

imprisonment.

[2023:RJ-JD:24750] (2 of 6) [CRLR-715/2003]

2. Bereft of elaborate details, facts relevant and essential for

disposal of the instant criminal revision are that on 13.02.1998 at

08.30 p.m., complainant Ganesha Kumhar submitted a written

report (Ex.P/3) at the Police Station Paladi (M) to the effect that

his farm is situated at a distance of around 1.5-2.00 km from

Arathwada. On that day at about 03.30 p.m., his daughter aged

11 years departed for the farm to take care of cattle. At 04.30

p.m. she was proceeding on unmetalled road near the field of

Jogaram Suara. At that time, accused Ajiya S/o Dharma Ji

Meghwal resident of Arathwada aged 25-26 years came on a

bicycle and finding the girl to be going alone, he approached her

from behind, closed her mouth with a cloth and with an intention

to sexually assault her, dragged her to some distance and tried to

outrage her modesty. The girl tried to escape, on which the

accused tore her skirt (Ghaghra) and broke the buttons of her

blouse and knock her down on the ground. At that time, Chun

Singh Rajput and Jasaram Kumhar came there and upon seeing

them, the accused fled on her bicycle. It is stated that if Chun

Singh and Jasaram had not reached on time, the accused would

have committed sexual assault upon the girl. Girl as well as Chun

Singh and Jasaram told him about the incident. On the basis of

the aforesaid report, FIR No.26/1998 for the offence under Section

376 read with Section 511 of the IPC was registered and after

usual investigation, a charge-sheet came to be filed against the

accused petitioner for the offence under Section 354 of the IPC.

[2023:RJ-JD:24750] (3 of 6) [CRLR-715/2003]

3. The Learned Magistrate framed charge against the petitioner

for the above offence and upon denial of guilt by him, commenced

the trial. During the course of trial, the prosecution in order to

prove the offences, examined as many as 9 witnesses and

exhibited various documents. The accused, upon being confronted

with the prosecution allegations, in his statement under Section

313 CrPC, denied the allegations and claimed to be falsely

implicated in the case due to enmity. No evidence was adduced in

defence. Then, after hearing the learned Public Prosecutor and

the learned Defence Counsel and upon meticulous appreciation of

the evidence, learned trial court convicted the accused for offence

under Section 354 of the IPC vide judgment dated 24.08.1998.

Aggrieved by the judgment of conviction, he preferred an appeal,

which was partly allowed by the learned appellate court vide

judgment dated 31.07.2003, whereby while affirming the

conviction, the sentence of imprisonment and the fine amount was

reduced in the manner stated above. Hence, this revision petition

is filed before this court.

4. After arguing the case on merits to some extent, learned

counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that he will not assail

conviction of the petitioner and confines his arguments to the

alternative prayer of reduction of the sentence awarded by the

trial court. He submits that the petitioner is a poor person. The

incident in the present case pertains to the year 1998. The

petitioner was aged 22 years of age at that time. He was not

having any criminal antecedents and it was the first criminal case

[2023:RJ-JD:24750] (4 of 6) [CRLR-715/2003]

registered against him. No adverse remark has been passed over

his conduct except the impugned judgment. The petitioner has

already suffered agony of protracted trial of 25 years. He

remained in custody for some time during trial and for some time

after passing of the judgment in appeal dated 31.07.2003. With

these submissions, learned counsel prays that by taking a lenient

view, the sentence awarded to the petitioner may be reduced to

the period already undergone.

5. Learned public prosecutor has, of course, been able to

defend the case on merits but does not refute the fact that it was

the first criminal case registered against the petitioner and he had

no criminal antecedents as well as the fact that he has remained

behind the bars for some time during trial and after passing of the

judgment in appeal.

6. Since the revision petition against conviction is not pressed

and after perusing the material, nothing is noticed which requires

interference in the finding of guilt reached by learned trial court

and affirmed by the appellate court, this court does not wish to

interfere in the judgment of conviction. Accordingly, the judgment

of conviction is maintained.

7. As far as the question of quantum of sentence in concerned,

it is worthwhile to note that the occurrence in this case pertains to

the year 1998. The right to speedy and expeditious trial is one of

the most valuable and cherished rights guaranteed under the

Constitution. The petitioner has already suffered the agony of

[2023:RJ-JD:24750] (5 of 6) [CRLR-715/2003]

protracted trial, spanning over a period of more than 25 years and

has been in the corridors of the court for this prolonged period.

He was 22 years at the time of the incident. It was the first

criminal case registered against him. He has not been shown to

be indulged in any other criminal case except this one. He

remained incarcerated for around 13 days during trial and for

around 13 days after passing of the judgment in appeal. Thus, he

has remained incarcerated for around a month. In view of the

facts noted above, the case of the petitioner deserves to be dealt

with leniency. The petitioner also deserves the benefit of the

consistent view taken by this court in this regard. Thus, guided by

the judicial pronouncements made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court

in the cases of Haripada Das Vs. State of West Bangal

reported in (1998) 9 SCC 678 and Alister Anthony Pareira vs.

State of Maharashtra reported in 2012 2 SCC 648 and

considering the facts and circumstances of the case, age of

appellant, his criminal antecedents, his status in the society and

the fact that he faced financial hardship and had to go through

mental agony, this court is of the view that ends of justice would

be met, if sentence imposed upon the petitioner is reduced to the

period already undergone by him.

8. Accordingly, the judgment of conviction dated 24.08.1998

passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Shivganj in

Criminal Regular Case No.85/1998 as well as the judgment in

appeal dated 31.07.2003 passed by the learned Sessions Judge,

Sirohi in Criminal appeal No.46/2003 are affirmed but the

[2023:RJ-JD:24750] (6 of 6) [CRLR-715/2003]

quantum of sentence awarded by the learned appellate court for

the offence under Section 354 of the IPC is modified to the extent

that the sentence the petitioner has undergone till date would be

sufficient and justifiable to serve the interest of justice. The

petitioner is on bail. He need not surrender. His bail bonds are

discharged.

9. The revision petition is allowed in part. Pending applications,

if any, are disposed of.

10. Record be sent back.

(FARJAND ALI),J 106-Pramod/-

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)