Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Gani Khan vs State (2025:Rj-Jd:2946) on 16 January, 2025
Author: Manoj Kumar Garg
Bench: Manoj Kumar Garg
[2025:RJ-JD:2946]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 755/2005
Gani Khan S/o Shri Ramjan Khan, B/c Musalman, R/o Lakhuwali
Rohi dhani Khud Chak 2 KWM Rohi Tehsil and District
Hanumangarh.
(At present lodged in District Jail Hanumangarh)
----Petitioner
Versus
State of Rajasthan
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Jitendra Singh Khichi
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Narendra Gehlot, PP with
Mr. OP Choudhary
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR GARG
Judgment
16/01/2025
Instant revision petition has been filed by the petitioner
challenging the judgment dated 18.08.2005 passed in Cr. Appeal
No.29/2005 by learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track),
Hanumangarh by which the appellate court dismissed the appeal
of the petitioner and upheld the judgment dated 26.04.2000,
passed by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate,
Hanumangarh, in Cr. Case No.323/1996 by which the learned trial
court convicted the petitioner for offence under Section 377 IPC
and sentenced him to undergo three years RI along with fine of
Rs.2,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo
one month RI.
Brief facts of the case are that on 18.05.1996, complainant
Yunush Ali submitted a written report at concerned Police Station
to the effect that the accused-petitioner committed unnatural act
[2025:RJ-JD:2946] (2 of 3) [CRLR-755/2005]
with his son Mustafa. On this report, Police registered a case
against the petitioner and started investigation.
After completion of investigation, the police filed challan
against the present petitioner. Thereafter, the trial court framed
charges against the accused petitioner for offences under Section
377 IPC, who pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
During the course of trial, the prosecution examined as many
as nine witnesses in support of its case and exhibited some
documents. Thereafter, statement of the accused petitioner was
recorded under section 313 Cr.P.C.
Upon conclusion of the trial, the learned trial court vide
impugned judgment dated 26.04.2000 convicted and sentenced
the accused-petitioner for aforesaid offence.
Being aggrieved by his conviction and sentence, the
petitioner preferred an appeal before the learned appellate court,
which came to be dismissed vide judgment dated 18.08.2005.
Hence, this revision petition.
At the threshold, learned counsel for the accused-petitioner
submits that he does not challenge the finding of conviction but
since the occurrence is related to the year 1996 and out of total
sentence of three years R.I., the accused petitioner has already
served more than four months imprisonment. The accused-
petitioner was around 19 years of age at the time of occurrence.
Therefore, it is prayed that the sentence awarded to petitioner for
the aforesaid offence may be reduced to the period already
undergone by him.
On the other hand, learned Public Prosecutor opposed the
submissions made by the learned counsel for the accused-
[2025:RJ-JD:2946] (3 of 3) [CRLR-755/2005]
petitioner and submitted that there is neither any occasion to
interfere with the sentence awarded to the accused petitioner nor
any compassion or sympathy is called for in the said case.
I have perused the evidence of the prosecution as well as
defence and the judgment passed by the courts below regarding
conviction of the accused-petitioner.
Undisputedly, the incident relates back to the year 1996 and
accused petitioner was around 19 years at the time of occurrence.
No criminal antecedents is alleged against the petitioner. He is
under stigma of alleged offence of sodomy for the last 29 years.
The petitioner has so far undergone a period of more than four
months in custody, out of total sentence of three years. Thus,
looking to the over-all circumstances and the fact that the
petitioner has remained behind the bars for some time, it will be
just and proper, if the sentence awarded by the trial court for
offence under Section 377 IPC and affirmed by the appellate court
is reduced to the period already undergone.
Accordingly, the revision petition is partly allowed. While
maintaining the petitioner's conviction for offence under Section
377 IPC, the sentence awarded to him for the aforesaid offence is
hereby reduced to the period already undergone. The fine amount
has already been deposited by the petitioner. The petitioner is on
bail. He need not surrender. His bail bonds are cancelled.
The records of the courts below be sent back forthwith.
(MANOJ KUMAR GARG),J
51-MS/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
