Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Pura Ram vs State (2023:Rj-Jd:25124) on 4 August, 2023
Bench: Farjand Ali
[2023:RJ-JD:25124]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 208/1995
Pura Ram son of Poosa Ram by caste Jat, resident of Ramsar
Tehsil, Bikaner
----Appellant
Versus
The State of Rajasthan
----Respondent
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Mukesh Vyas
For Respondent(s) : Mr. S.S. Rajpurohit, P.P.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FARJAND ALI
Judgment
04/08/2023
1. The appellant has preferred the instant appeal under Section
374(2) of the CrPC being aggrieved of the judgment dated
28.04.1995 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge,
Bikaner in Sessions Case No.42/1993, whereby he has been
convicted for the offences under Sections 457 and 354 of the IPC
and for each count, sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment
of 3 months. Both the sentences were ordered to run
concurrently.
2. Briefly stated, facts relevant and essential for disposal of the
case are that on 06.06.1992 at 07.00 p.m. complainant Mrs.
Mangi Devi W/o Bhagirath submitted an oral complaint at the
Police Station Napasar, District Bikaner to the effect that since last
[2023:RJ-JD:25124] (2 of 6) [CRLA-208/1995]
3-4 years, her father-in-law Pura Ram used to tease and harass
her by doing inappropriate acts and upon resistance by her
husband, he used to beat him. Being fed up with such activities,
they separated and were living in a different portion of the house
for last around one year. On 05.06.1992, she alongwith her
children was sleeping in their portion of the house. In the night at
about 11.00 p.m., the accused came there and lied on her on the
cot and tried to outrage her modesty. She made a hue and cry,
upon which, her husband came and tried to free her. Her blouse
was also torn in this scuffle. Sugana Ram, Chand Ram and
Ramsukh also came there. The accused climbed on the roof of the
house and started abusing and threatening. If her husband and
other relatives had not intervened, the accused would have been
successful in outraging her modesty.
3. On the basis of the aforesaid report FIR No.57/1992 for the
offences under Sections 457 and 376/511 of the IPC was
registered and investigation was commenced. After usual
investigation, a charge-sheet was filed against the present
appellant.
4. The learned trial court framed charges against the appellant
for the offences under Sections 457 and 376/511 of the IPC and
upon denial of guilt by the accused, commenced the trial. During
the course of trial, as many as 7 witnesses were examined and 7
documents were exhibited. Thereafter, an explanation was sought
from the accused-appellants under Section 313 Cr.P.C., in which
[2023:RJ-JD:25124] (3 of 6) [CRLA-208/1995]
he denied the prosecution allegations and claimed to be falsely
implicated in the case. 2 witnesses were examined and 4
documents were exhibited from the defence side. Then, after
hearing the learned Public Prosecutor and the learned Defence
Counsel and upon meticulous appreciation of the evidence,
learned trial Judge convicted and sentenced the appellant in the
manner stated above vide judgment dated 28.04.1995, which is
under assail before this court in the instant appeal.
5. After arguing on merits to some extent, learned counsel for
the appellant does not wish to press the present appeal in respect
of the judgment of conviction passed by the learned trial court and
preferred to make submissions on the point of sentence only. He
submits that the incident pertains to the year 1992. The appellant
was 57 years of age at that time. At present he is around 85
years of age. He has faced the rigor of criminal case for good 31
years and has languished in jail for 4 days during trial, therefore,
looking to the age of the appellant and facts and circumstances of
the case, the sentence awarded to the appellant may be reduced
to the period already undergone.
6. Learned public prosecutor has, of course, been able to
defend the case on merits but does not refute the fact that the
appellant has remained behind the bars for some time and that
the incident is very old and much time has already gone by since
then. He, however, submits that the learned trial court has
already taken a liberal approach by awarding a sentence of only 3
[2023:RJ-JD:25124] (4 of 6) [CRLA-208/1995]
months and thus, the appellant does not deserve any further
leniency.
7. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and the learned
Public prosecutor and perused the record and other material
available on the record.
8. Since the appeal against conviction is not pressed and after
perusing the record, nothing is noticed which requires interference
in the finding of guilt reached by learned trial court, this court
does not wish to interfere in the judgment of conviction.
Accordingly, the judgment of conviction is maintained.
9. As far as the question of quantum of sentence is concerned,
it is worthwhile to note that the incident is of the year 1992. The
accused was aged 57 years at the time of the incident and now he
is around 85 years old. The right to speedy and expeditious trial
is one of the most valuable and cherished rights guaranteed under
the Constitution. The appellant has already suffered the agony of
protracted trial, spanning over a period of more than 31 years and
has been in the corridors of the court for this prolonged period.
He has remained incarcerated for 4 days during trial. It is true
that the appellant has remained on bail for all these years, but the
sword of going back to jail was always dangling over his head.
The reformative theory of punishment is in vogue in our country
and since the appellant is living peacefully since last 31 years as
no report contrary to that has been received by this court, thus, it
[2023:RJ-JD:25124] (5 of 6) [CRLA-208/1995]
can be assumed that he has been reformed and no fruitful
purpose would be served by sending him to jail at the ripe age of
85 years.
10. In view of the discussion made hereinabove, the case of the
appellant deserves to be dealt with leniency. The appellant 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 sentences imposed upon him for each
count is reduced to the one already undergone by him.
11. Accordingly, the judgment of conviction dated 28.04.1995
passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bikaner in
Sessions Case No.42/1993 is affirmed but the quantum of
sentence awarded by the learned trial court for the offences under
Sections 457 and 354 of the IPC is modified to the extent that the
sentence he has undergone till date would be sufficient and
justifiable to serve the interest of justice. The appellant is on bail.
He need not surrender. His bail bonds are discharged.
[2023:RJ-JD:25124] (6 of 6) [CRLA-208/1995]
12. The appeal is allowed in part.
13. Pending applications, if any, are disposed of.
14. Record be sent back to the trial court.
(FARJAND ALI),J
69-Pramod/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
