Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Gurmej Singh @ Fozi vs State (2025:Rj-Jd:38032-Db) on 26 August, 2025
Author: Manoj Kumar Garg
Bench: Manoj Kumar Garg
[2025:RJ-JD:38032-DB]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
D.B. Criminal Jail Appeal No. 773/2014
Gurmej Singh @ Fozi S/o Shri Kartar Singh, B/c Jatsikh, R/o
Chak 2 KNJ, Police Station Hanumangarh Junction, District
Hanumangarh. (Raj.)
----Appellant
Versus
State of Rajasthan
----Respondent
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Pradeep Choudhary, Amicus
Curiae assisted by
Ms. Sampatee Godara
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vikram Singh Rajpurohit, PP
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR GARG
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI CHIRANIA
Judgment
26/08/2025
BY THE COURT : (PER HON'BLE MR. MANOJ KUMAR GARG,J)
Instant criminal jail appeal has been received by post on
behalf of the appellant through Superintendent, Central Jail,
Bikaner challenging the judgment dated 24.09.2014 passed by
learned Special Judge, POCSO Act (District & Sessions Judge),
Hanumangarh, in Sessions Case No.23/2014 by which the learned
Trial Court convicted and sentenced the appellant as under:
S.No. Offence U/ Sentence Fine Sentence in
s default of fine
1. 376(2)(i) Life imprisonment Rs.25,000/- 6 months SI
IPC for remainder of
natural life
2. 3(2)(v) of Life imprisonment Rs.5,000/- 4 months SI
SC/ST Act
Both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently.
[2025:RJ-JD:38032-DB] (2 of 5) [CRLA-773/2014]
Brief facts necessary to be noted for deciding the controversy
are that on 26.08.2014, complainant- Gurpreet Singh S/o
Jogendra Singh submitted a written report at Mahila Police
Station, Hanumangarh to the effect that while he was engaged in
agricultural labor on the farm of Gurpreet Singh S/o Balraj Singh,
he received a telephonic communication from his wife- Sita Bai,
informing him that the accused-appellant had committed rape
upon their daughter- Amandeep. Upon receiving this distressing
information, the complainant immediately proceeded to his
residence and thereafter accompanied Amandeep to a hospital via
the 108 Ambulance service for medical examination and
treatment.
On the said report, Police registered the FIR against the
accused-appellant and started investigation. During the course of
investigation, Police arrested the accused-appellant. On
completion of investigation, police filed challan against the
accused-appellant before the concerned court.
Thereafter, learned Trial Court framed, read over and
explained the charges to the accused-appellant for the offence
under Sections 363, 366, 376(2)(i) IPC and Section 5(m)/6 of
POCSO Act and Section 3(2)(v) of SC/St Act. He denied the
charge and sought trial.
During the course of trial, the prosecution examined as many
as eighteen witnesses and also got exhibited relevant documents
in support of its case.
The accused appellant was examined under Section 313
Cr.P.C. In defence, no witness was examined.
[2025:RJ-JD:38032-DB] (3 of 5) [CRLA-773/2014]
Learned trial Court, after hearing the arguments from both
the sides, taking into consideration and appreciating the
documentary evidence and the statements of witnesses, vide
judgment dated 24.09.2014 convicted and sentenced the accused-
appellant for offences as mentioned hereinabove. Hence, this
criminal jail appeal.
Mr. Pradeep Choudhary, amicus curiae, appearing for the
accused-appellant has argued that the statement of the victim
could not be recorded owing to her tender age of merely one and
a half years at the time of the incident. Counsel further submitted
that the following witnesses have been examined: Sita Bai, the
mother of the victim, as PW-1; Taro Kaur, the sister-in-law
(Bhabhi) of the complainant, as PW-2; Manjeet Kaur, an
independent witness and neighbour, as PW-3; and Gurpreet Singh,
the complainant and father of the victim, as PW-7. It was argued
that the statements of these witnesses contain material
contradictions, omissions, and improvements. Consequently, it
was alleged that the trial court erred gravely in passing a
judgment of conviction against the accused-appellant.
Furthermore, it was contended that at the time of the incident, the
accused-appellant was approximately 65 years of age, and he was
subsequently sentenced to serve imprisonment for the remainder
of his natural life. Currently, the accused-appellant is
approximately 76 years old and suffers from declining health. In
light of his advanced age and health condition, it was prayed that
the sentence of life imprisonment, as awarded by the trial court
under Section 372(2)(i) of the IPC, be modified to a lesser term of
life imprisonment.
[2025:RJ-JD:38032-DB] (4 of 5) [CRLA-773/2014]
Per-contra, the learned Public Prosecutor has vehemently
opposed the prayer made by the counsel for the accused-appellant
and submitted that the accused-appellant has committed a
heinous crime of committing rape with a minor girl aged about one
and a half years. Thus, no leniency or sympathy should be shown
against the accused-appellant. Learned Public Prosecutor thus
craves dismissal of the appeal.
We have considered the submissions of the counsel for the
parties made at bar and perused the impugned judgment as well
as record of the case.
At this stage, it is relevant to refer to Section 376(2)(i) of
IPC which reads as under :-
"Section 376(2)(i) of IPC : Whoever commits rape
on a woman when she is under sixteen years of age
shall be punished with rigorous imprisonment for a
term which shall not be less than ten years, but which
may extend to imprisonment for life, which shall mean
imprisonment for the remainder of that person's
natural life, and shall also be liable to fine."
In the present case, the prosecution has levelled an
allegation against the accused-appellant of committing the offence
of rape upon a minor girl, approximately one and a half years of
age. The prosecution's case has been substantiated through
consistent testimonies of both eyewitnesses and independent
witnesses, which have been further corroborated by medical
evidence. Based on the totality of the evidence, the prosecution
has successfully established the guilt of the accused beyond all
reasonable doubt. Regarding the sentence imposed for the offence
under Section 376(2)(i) of the IPC, the trial court originally
sentenced the accused to imprisonment for the remainder of his
[2025:RJ-JD:38032-DB] (5 of 5) [CRLA-773/2014]
natural life. However, considering the current age of the appellant,
who is approximately 76 years old, along with his present health
condition, we find it appropriate to modify the sentence.
In light of these circumstances, we are inclined to convert
the original sentence of life imprisonment for the offence under
Section 376(2)(i) IPC into a sentence of life imprisonment. This
adjustment is justified on the grounds of humanitarian
considerations, the appellant's age, and his physical well-being,
which warrant a compassionate approach while ensuring that the
gravity of the offence is duly acknowledged and penalized.
Resultantly, the criminal jail appeal is disposed of. The
sentence awarded to the accused-appellant for offence under
Section 376(2)(i) IPC is hereby converted from imprisonment for
remainder of his natural life to life imprisonment. To that extent,
the impugned judgment dated 24.09.2014, passed by the learned
Special Judge, POCSO Act (District & Sessions Judge),
Hanumangarh passed in Sessions Case No.23/2014 is hereby
modified.
The record of the trial court be sent back forthwith.
A copy of this order be communicated to the accused-
appellant.
(RAVI CHIRANIA),J (MANOJ KUMAR GARG),J
17-MS/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
