Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Prem Shankar vs State Of Rajasthan (2023:Rj-Jd:41991) on 4 December, 2023
Author: Manoj Kumar Garg
Bench: Manoj Kumar Garg
[2023:RJ-JD:41991]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Appeal (Sb) No. 513/2019
Prem Shankar S/o Jagdish Chandra Panchawat, Aged About 27
Years, By Caste Menaria, Resident Of Menar, P.s. Kheroda, Dist.
Udaipur.
----Appellant
Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp
----Respondent
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Ram Singh Rawal
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Anil Joshi, GA-cum-AAG assisted
by Mr. Mukesh Trivedi, PP &
Mr. Rajat Chhaparwal
Mr. RK Charan, for complainant
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR GARG
Judgment
04/12/2023
Instant criminal appeal has been filed by the appellant under
Section 374(2) Cr.P.C. against the judgment dated 08.04.2019
passed by learned Special Judge, POCSO Act, 2012 and
Commission for Protection of Child Rights Act, 2005, No.2, Udaipur
in Special Sessions Case No.04/2018 by which the learned Judge
convicted the appellant for offence under Section 354D IPC and
sentenced him to undergo six months' R.I. alongwith fine of
Rs.2,000/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo seven
days' R.I.
Brief facts of the case are that on 24.03.2017, a report was
submitted by the complainant before the SP, Udaipur against the
appellant inter-alia alleging therein that she is student of 11 th class
in Pawan Putra School, Bhatevar. She alleged that whenever she
went to school, the accused-appellant used to harass by teasing
[2023:RJ-JD:41991] (2 of 4) [CRLAS-513/2019]
her, stalking her, insulting her and also making vulgar and obscene
comments on her. It was alleged that few days earlier also, the
appellant did the same thing with her, therefore, now she is
unable to attend the school.
On this report, Police registered a case against the accused-
appellant for offence under Section 354A IPC and started
investigation.
After investigation, the police filed challan against the
present appellant for offence under Sections 354A, 354D IPC and
Section 11/12 of POCSO Act. Thereafter, the charges of the case
were framed against the appellant. He denied the charges and
claimed trial.
During the course of trial, the prosecution examined seven
witnesses and exhibited various documents. Thereafter, statement
of appellant under section 313 Cr.P.C was recorded. Two defence
witnesses were examined from his side and some documentary
evidence were produced.
Upon conclusion of the trial, the learned trial court vide
impugned judgment dated 08.04.2019 while acquitting the
appellant for offence under Section 354A IPC and Section 11/12 of
POCSO Act, convicted and sentenced him for offence under
Section 354D IPC as mentioned earlier.
At the threshold, learned counsel for the appellant does not
challenge the finding of conviction but it is submitted that since
the occurrence relates back to year 2017 and the appellant has so
far suffered a sentence of one day out of total sentence of six
months', therefore, it is prayed that the sentence awarded to the
[2023:RJ-JD:41991] (3 of 4) [CRLAS-513/2019]
appellant for the aforesaid offence may be reduced to the period
already undergone by him.
On the other hand, the learned Public Prosecutor and counsel
for the complainant have vehemently opposed the submissions
made by the learned counsel for the appellant and submitted that
there is neither any occasion to interfere with the sentence
awarded to the accused appellant nor any compassion or
sympathy is called for in the said case.
Since the appellant's counsel does not challenge the
appellant's conviction, this Court need not go into the merits of
the case and accordingly, the conviction of the appellant as
recorded by the learned trial court for the offence under Section
354D IPC is maintained.
Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
evidence of the prosecution as well as defence and the judgment
passed by the trial.
It is not disputed that occurrence relates back to the year
2017 and the appellant has so far undergone a period of one day
incarceration out of the total six months' rigorous imprisonment so
also suffered the agony and trauma of protracted trial. Thus,
looking to the over-all circumstances and the fact that the
appellant has remained behind the bars for considerable time, it
will be just and proper if the sentence awarded by the trial court
for offence under Section 354D IPC is reduced to the period
already undergone by him while enhancing the amount of fine.
Accordingly, the appeal is partly allowed. While maintaining
the appellant's conviction and sentence for offence under Section
354D IPC, the sentence awarded to him is reduced to the period
[2023:RJ-JD:41991] (4 of 4) [CRLAS-513/2019]
already undergone by him, however the amount of fine is hereby
increased from Rs.2,000/- to Rs.5,000/-. The fine amount shall be
disbursed to the victim 'N' immediately. Three months' time is
granted to deposit the increased fine amount before the trial
court, failing which, the appellant shall undergo seven days' R.I.
The appellant is on bail. His bail bonds stand discharged.
The record of the trial court be sent back forthwith.
(MANOJ KUMAR GARG),J
299-MS/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
