Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Nainu Singh vs State Of Rajasthan (2023:Rj-Jd:44038) on 15 December, 2023
Author: Manoj Kumar Garg
Bench: Manoj Kumar Garg
[2023:RJ-JD:44038]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Appeal (Sb) No. 347/2022
Nainu Singh S/o Shri Roop Singh, Aged About 70 Years, B/c
Rawat, R/o Kahari Jaggawas, Devgarh Police Station, District
Rajsamand. (Confined In Central Jail, Udaipur)
----Appellant
Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp
----Respondent
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Ashvini Kumar Swami
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Mukesh Trivedi, PP
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR GARG
Order
15/12/2023
Instant criminal appeal has been filed by the appellant under
Section 374(2) Cr.P.C. against the judgment dated 16.04.2021
passed by learned Special Judge, POCSO Act Cases, Rajsamand in
Sessions Case No.15/2019 whereby, the learned trial court
convicted and sentenced the present petitioner as under :
Offence U/s 363 IPC : One years' S.I. and a fine of Rs.5,000/-,
in default of payment of fine, further undergo six months'
additional S.I.
Offence U/s 366-A IPC : Three years' S.I. and a fine of
Rs.5,000/-, in default of payment of fine, further six months'
additional S.I.
Offence U/s 354-A IPC : Three years' R.I. and a fine of
Rs.5,000/-, in default of payment of fine, further six months'
additional S.I.
[2023:RJ-JD:44038] (2 of 4) [CRLAS-347/2022]
Offence U/s 354-B IPC : Three years' R.I. and a fine of
Rs.5,000/-, in default of payment of fine, further six months'
additional S.I.
Offence U/s 9(M)/10 of POCSO Act: Five years' R.I. and a fine
of Rs.10,000/-, in default of payment of fine, further six months'
additional S.I.
All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently.
Brief facts of the case are that on 13.01.2019, complainant
Smt. Vidhya Devi gave a written report to the Police, stating
therein that, on 12.01.2019, when her minor daughter was
playing with one Champa in the play ground of Rajeev Gandhi
School, at about 4.30 p.m., appellant Nainu Singh enticed and
took her daughter to the school kitchen on the pretext of giving
her berries. When the complainant did not see her daughter, she
went in search from her house with her another daughter Kiran.
Suddenly they heard the noise of her daughter weeping, she
entered into the kitchen, where she found the appellant with her
minor daughter in objectionable condition who was crying.
Thereafter, the complainant took her daughter to her husband and
disclosed all the facts. Upon which a complaint was lodged
against the appellant for offence under Sections 363, 366, 368,
354-A, 354-B and 376/511 of IPC and Section 9/10 of POCSO Act.
The Police arrested the appellant and started investigation.
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 13
witnesses and various documents were also exhibited. Thereafter,
[2023:RJ-JD:44038] (3 of 4) [CRLAS-347/2022]
statement of appellant under section 313 Cr.P.C was recorded.
One defence witness was examined in this case.
Upon conclusion of the trial, the learned trial court vide
impugned judgment dated 16.04.2021 convicted and sentenced
the appellant for offence under Sections 363, 366-A, 354-A, 354-B
of IPC and Section 9(M)/10 of POCSO Act as mentioned earlier.
At the threshold, counsel for the appellant does not
challenge the finding of conviction but it is submitted that the
occurrence relates back to year 2019 and the petitioner has so far
suffered a sentence of about three years and eleven days, out of
total sentence of five years' R.I. In such circumstances, it is
prayed that the substantive sentence awarded to the accused-
appellant for the offence under Sections 363, 366-A, 354-A, 354-B
of IPC and Section 9(M)/10 of POCSO Act may be reduced to the
period already undergone by him.
On the other hand, the learned Public Prosecutor opposed
the submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellant.
The learned PP 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 Sections
363, 366-A, 354-A, 354-B of IPC and Section 9(M)/10 of POCSO
Act is maintained.
[2023:RJ-JD:44038] (4 of 4) [CRLAS-347/2022]
Accordingly, the criminal appeal is partly allowed. While
maintaining the petitioner's conviction and sentence for offence
under Sections 363, 366-A, 354-A, 354-B of IPC and Section 9(M)/
10 of POCSO Act, the sentence awarded to him for aforesaid offence
is hereby reduced to the period already undergone. The amount of
fine is hereby maintained. Three months' time is granted to deposit
the fine amount before the trial Court. In default of payment of fine
the petitioner shall undergo six month's additional S.I. The appellant
is on bail. He need not surrender. His bail bonds stand discharged.
The record of the court below be sent back forthwith.
(MANOJ KUMAR GARG),J
261-Ishan/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
