[Cites 6, Cited by 0]
Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Ram Shanker vs State (2025:Rj-Jd:52338) on 4 December, 2025
Author: Farjand Ali
Bench: Farjand Ali
[2025:RJ-JD:52338]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 496/1996
Ram Shanker S/o Shri Ram Kishan, by caste Brahman, R/o
Mathsena, P.S. Mathsena, District Firozabad (U.P.) (At present
confined in Central Jail, Bikaner).
----Appellant
Versus
The State of Rajasthan.
----Respondent
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Uttam Singh Rajpurohit (Amicus
Curiae)
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Rajesh Bhati, AGA with
Mr. Ravindra Singh
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FARJAND ALI
Order
04/12/2025
1. The appeal is pending before this Court since the year 1996.
The appellant was convicted by the learned Special Judge,
(SC/ST) and Additional Sessions Judge, Bikaner, vide judgment
dated 27.09.1996 in Sessions Case No.66/1993 for the offence
under Section 363 of IPC and was sentenced to undergo one and a
half years rigorous imprisonment along with a fine of Rs.100/-, in
default of payment of fine, seven days SI with the benefit of
Section 228 Cr.P.C.
2. Learned counsel Shri Uttam Singh Rajpurohit is hereby
appointed as Amicus Curiae to assist the Court on behalf of the
appellant under the free legal aid scheme of Rajasthan State Legal
Services Authority. The remuneration to learned counsel shall be
paid by RSLSA as the per the rules.
3. Briefly stated, the prosecution case is that complainant Badri
Narain (brother of prosecutrix) lodged an FIR (Ex. P-11) dated
(Uploaded on 10/12/2025 at 02:55:15 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:52338] (2 of 4) [CRLA-496/1996]
30.06.1993 at Police Station Sadar, Bikaner, alleging that on the
occasion of the marriage of his elder sister, the younger sister was
staying at his residence. At around midnight, she was found
missing. It was further stated that the appellant, who resided in
the house situated opposite to that of the complainant and used to
sell the bangles, was also absent at the same time and Saraswati
also used to visit the house of appellant. Upon investigation, the
prosecutrix Saraswati was traced, and the police submitted the
charge-sheet against the appellant for offences punishable under
Sections 363, 366-A and 376 of the Indian Penal Code.
3.1 The learned Judge framed charges against the appellant
under Section 363 of IPC and acquitted from the charges under
Sections 366-A and 376 of IPC. Hence, the instant appeal is filed
before this Court.
4. At the outset, learned counsel for the appellant submits that
he does not assail the finding of conviction and confines his
submissions to the question of sentence. In view thereof, the
conviction of the appellant is affirmed and the appeal stands
dismissed to that extent.
5. I have heard learned counsel for both sides.
6. The deficit nature and quality of the evidence persuaded the
learned trial Court to acquit the accused from offence under
Sections 366-A and 376 of IPC, however, based on the evidence
regarding abduction of a minor girl, the accused was convicted for
offence under Section 363 of IPC.
6.1 To invoke Section 363 of IPC, two things are imperative for
the prosecution to prove, firstly, the victim was below the age of
18 years at the relevant point of time and that she was removed
(Uploaded on 10/12/2025 at 02:55:15 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:52338] (3 of 4) [CRLA-496/1996]
from her lawful guardianship. The statement of the Medical Officer
suggests her age to be 14 years at the relevant point of time. The
evidence is based upon radiological examination conducted
by ossification test. The Medical Officer, particularly the radiology
specialist, is expected to assess the age based on the fusion of the
epiphysis at the margins of the bone. This task is undertaken by
the Medical Officer on the basis of his experience and by observing
the radiographic films. At the relevant point of time, the age of the
victim may be two years above since variation in the opinion of
doctor is inevitable. Reliance can be placed upon the judgment
passed by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of Birad Mal
Singhvi Vs. Anand Purohit reported in AIR 1988 (2) SC 1796
as well as upon the judgment in Jaya Mala Vs. Home
Secretary, Government of Jammu & Kashmir & Ors. reported
in AIR 1982 SC 1297. The evidence brought on record by the
prosecution suggesting elopement, however, at the relevant point
of time, she was below the age of 18 years and the age of the
accused was around 18 years and it may be a case of a crime
committed in adolescence. The maximum punishment in Section
363 of IPC is not more than seven years. Why the benefit of
probation could not be extended to him and what was the legal
impediment in doing so has not been discussed by the learned
trial Court. This Court is of the view that
awarding the sentence of one and a half years for committing
offence under Section 363 of IPC to an adolescent in the given
circumstances was not proper.
6.2 The conduct attributed to the appellant stands duly
admonished, and he is sensitized to eschew such behaviour in
(Uploaded on 10/12/2025 at 02:55:15 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:52338] (4 of 4) [CRLA-496/1996]
future. Considering the extraordinary lapse of time, this Court is of
the view that after 32 years of the incident, asking an accused to
furnish bail bond to maintain peace and harmony for one year or
two years won't be proper or reasonable. The ends of justice
would be meet if act of the accused is admonished. The incident is
a relic of the distant past, and the continued pendency of the
matter serves no meaningful purpose in the present day. The
object of criminal law is not to inflict unending hardship but to
correct conduct and secure harmony. The appellant has already
borne the weight of prosecution for an unduly prolonged period,
and to keep the matter alive any further would not be in
consonance with sound judicial policy. In these circumstances, the
appellant is warned and admonished, and the Court refrains from
imposing any further substantive sentence, observing that no
fruitful purpose would be achieved by prolonging the matter after
such a long span of time.
7. Accordingly, the appeal is partly allowed. The conviction of
the appellant under Section 363 of IPC is maintained. He need not
to surrender back to serve the remainder part of the sentence. His
bail bonds shall stand discharged forthwith.
8. Record be sent back.
(FARJAND ALI),J
53-divya/-
(Uploaded on 10/12/2025 at 02:55:15 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
