Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Jagdish vs State (2025:Rj-Jd:38634-Db) on 28 August, 2025
Author: Manoj Kumar Garg
Bench: Manoj Kumar Garg
[2025:RJ-JD:38634-DB]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
D.B. Criminal Appeal No. 1283/2016
Jagdish S/o Hukmaram, Meelon Ki Dhani, P.s. Nechhwa, Distt.
Sikar Rajasthan At Present Resident At Rohi Soniasar, P.s.
Seruna, Distt. Bikaner. At Present Lodged In Central Jail Bikaner
----Appellant
Versus
The State Of Rajasthan Through The Public Prosecutor.
----Respondent
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Vijay Bishnoi, Adv. with
Mr. Sachin Lohiya
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vikram Singh Rajpurohit, PP
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR GARG
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI CHIRANIA
Judgment
28/08/2025
BY THE COURT : (PER HON'BLE MR. MANOJ KUMAR GARG,J)
Instant criminal appeal has been filed by the appellant
challenging the judgment dated 24.10.2016 passed by learned
Additional Session Judge No.2, Bikaner (Camp Sri Dungargarh),
District Bikaner, in Sessions Case No.09/2013 by which the
learned Trial Court convicted the appellant for offence under
Section 376(2)(f) IPC and sentenced him for life imprisonment till
remainder of his natural life along with a fine of Rs.50,000/- and
in default of payment of fine to further undergo six months RI.
Brief facts necessary to be noted for deciding the controversy
are that on 12.05.2013, prosecutrix (PW/1) along with his brother
Sampat (PW/2) submitted a written report at Police Station
Seruna to the effect that on 07.05.2013 at about 11:00 PM, his
[2025:RJ-JD:38634-DB] (2 of 5) [CRLA-1283/2016]
brother- Sampat travelled to Sikar to appear for an examination.
At the relevant time, the prosecutrix and her father, the present
appellant, were sleeping near a tube well. At about 01:00-02:00
AM, the prosecutrix's father committed rape with her and further
threatened her with dire consequences if she disclosed the
incident. It was further alleged that on the subsequent night i.e.
08.05.2013 at about 12:00 AM, the appellant again committed
rape with the prosecutrix. On the following day i.e. 09.05.2013 at
about 03:00 PM, when prosecutrix's brother- Sampat returned
home, she told him about the act of the appellant.
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 for offence under Section 376(2)(f) IPC before
the concerned court.
Thereafter, learned Trial Court framed, read over and
explained the charges to the accused-appellant for the offence
under Section 376(2)(f) IPC. He denied the charge and sought
trial.
During the course of trial, the prosecution examined as many
as ten 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, one witness Bajranlal was examined as DW-1
and two documents were exhibited.
Learned trial Court, after hearing the arguments from both
the sides, taking into consideration and appreciating the
[2025:RJ-JD:38634-DB] (3 of 5) [CRLA-1283/2016]
documentary evidence and the statements of witnesses, vide
judgment dated 24.10.2016 convicted and sentenced the accused-
appellant for offence under Section 376(2)(f) IPC as mentioned
hereinabove. Hence, this criminal appeal.
Mr. Vijay Bishnoi, representing the accused-appellant,
contends that the accused has been falsely implicated in this case.
He further submits that there is no direct evidence establishing a
connection between the appellant and the alleged offence.
Additionally, it is pointed out that the prosecutrix's statement
contains significant contradictions, omissions, and improvements.
Consequently, it is argued that the trial court erred substantially in
convicting the accused-appellant. The impugned judgment of
conviction, being fundamentally illegal, warrants being quashed
and set aside. In the alternative, it is submitted that the accused-
appellant is behind the bars for more than fourteen years,
therefore, it is prayed that the sentence of life imprisonment for
remainder of his natural life, as awarded by the trial court for
offence under Section 376(2)(f) of IPC, be modified to a lesser
term of life imprisonment. Counsel has relied upon the judgment
of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ravinder Singh Vs.
State Govt. of NCT of Delhi, Cr. Appeal No.1031/2023,
decided on 25.04.2023 & in the case of Mallan @ Rajan Kani
Vs. State of Kerala, Cr. Appeal arising out of SLP (Crl.)
No.7003/2024, decided on 03.09.2024 and upon the judgment
of this High Court in the case of Kishan Singh Vs. State of
Rajasthan [2025:RJ-JD-24489-DB].
Per-contra, the learned Public Prosecutor has vehemently
opposed the prayer made by the counsel for the accused-appellant
[2025:RJ-JD:38634-DB] (4 of 5) [CRLA-1283/2016]
and submitted that the accused-appellant has committed a
heinous crime of committing rape with his daughter. 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)(f) of
IPC which reads as under:-
"Section 376(2)(i) of IPC : Being a relative, guardian
or teacher of, or a person in a position of trust or authority
towards the woman, commits rape on such woman; 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 his daughter i.e. prosecutrix. The prosecution's case
has been substantiated through consistent testimonies of both the
prosecutrix and other 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)(f) of the
IPC, the trial court originally sentenced the accused to
imprisonment for the remainder of his natural life. However,
[2025:RJ-JD:38634-DB] (5 of 5) [CRLA-1283/2016]
considering the period of incarceration of the appellant, 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)(f) IPC into a sentence of life imprisonment. This
adjustment is justified on the grounds of humanitarian
considerations, which warrants a compassionate approach while
ensuring that the gravity of the offence is duly acknowledged and
penalized.
Resultantly, the criminal appeal is disposed of. The sentence
awarded to the accused-appellant for offence under Section
376(2)(f) IPC is hereby converted from imprisonment for
remainder of his natural life to life imprisonment. To that extent,
the impugned judgment dated 24.10.2016, passed by the learned
Additional Session Judge No.2, Bikaner (Camp Sri Dungargarh),
District Bikaner passed in Sessions Case No.09/2013 is hereby
modified.
The record of the trial court be sent back forthwith.
(RAVI CHIRANIA),J (MANOJ KUMAR GARG),J
15-MS/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
