Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur

Suresh Kumar vs State (2025:Rj-Jd:50594) on 24 November, 2025

Author: Bhuwan Goyal

Bench: Bhuwan Goyal

[2025:RJ-JD:50594]

      HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
                       JODHPUR
                     S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 51/1997

Suresh Kumar S/o Shri Purna Ram B/c Meghwal, R/o Nai-Mandi,
Ghadsana, Tehsil-Ghadsana, District Sri Gangangar.
                                                                     ----Appellant
                                      Versus
State of Rajasthan.
                                                                   ----Respondent


For Appellant(s)            :     Mr. R.D.S.S. Kharlia
For Respondent(s)           :     Mr. Rajesh Bhati, AGA


             HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BHUWAN GOYAL

Judgment 24/11/2025

1. The present criminal appeal under Section 374 of the Code of

Criminal Procedure has been filed by the accused-appellant-

Suresh Kumar against the Judgment dated 15.01.1997 passed by

Additional District & Sessions Judge, Raisingh Nagar, (hereinafter

referred to as "trial Court") in Sessions Case No.69/2005 (State of

Rajasthan vs. Suresh Kumar) whereby, accused-appellant has

been acquitted fro the offence under Section 376/511 IPC yet

convicted for the offence under Section 354 IPC and sentenced to

undergo two years' simple imprisonment.

2. Facts of the case in short are that on 17.06.1995 an FIR

No.212/1995 was lodged at Police Station Ghadsana under Section

342 and 376/511 IPC against the appellant on the written report

filed by one Mool Chand alleging therein that at about 8.30 pm

when he returned from the Office his daughter told him that his

maternal grand daughter-K did not return home. On this, he went

in search of K and when he reached near the quarter of Puran

(Uploaded on 25/11/2025 at 02:21:24 PM)

[2025:RJ-JD:50594] (2 of 5) [CRLA-51/1997]

Ram, he heard hue and cry of her. He immediately entered in the

room and saw that Suresh lying on his grand daughter-K on the

bed and she was crying and after seeing him accused-appellant-

Suresh ran away. On the basis of said report, the Police registered

aforesaid FIR for the offence under Sections 342 & 376/511 IPC

and investigation was commenced. After completing the

investigation, the police submitted the challan against accused-

Suresh Kumar for the offences under Sections 354, 376/511 IPC

before the concerned Court. Charges were framed against the

accused-appellant, who denied the same and claimed for trial.

After conclusion of trial, the learned trial Court passed judgment

and order dated 15.01.1997 convicting and sentencing the

accused petitioner for the offence under Section 354 IPC. Hence,

this criminal appeal has been preferred by the accused-appellant.

3. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

4. After arguing the matter on merits at some length, learned

counsel for the accused-appellant does not want to press instant

appeal challenging judgment passed by the learned trial Court qua

conviction and prefers to make submissions on the point of

sentence only.

5. Learned counsel for the accused-appellant has submitted

that incident in the present case took place way back in the year

1995 i.e. around 30 years ago; accused-appellant was more than

18 years of young boy at the time of incident and now he is

around 43 years old and facing agony of trial for the past about 30

years; accused-appellant, who is sole bread earner in the family,

belongs to poor strata of society and remained in police and

judicial custody for a period of about 19 days and there is no

(Uploaded on 25/11/2025 at 02:21:24 PM)

[2025:RJ-JD:50594] (3 of 5) [CRLA-51/1997]

previous conviction recorded against the accused-appellant,

therefore, he prays that ends of justice would meet if a lenient

view is taken in the matter and sentence of imprisonment

awarded to the accused-appellant is reduced to the period already

undergone by him.

6. Learned counsel for the accused-appellant has relied upon

the judgment rendered by a Coordinate Bench of this Court in the

cases of Vidyadharan vs. State of Kerala (Appeal [Cri.]

No.278 of 1997) decided on 14.11.2003.

7. Per contra, learned Government Advocate while opposing the

appeal, submits that looking to the overall facts and circumstances

of the case and the well reasoned speaking order passed by the

learned trial Court court cannot be said to be disproportionate,

therefore, no interference in sentence is warranted in this case.

8. I have considered the arguments advanced at the Bar and

have gone through judgment passed by learned trial Court and

record of the case.

9. Since the appeal against conviction of the accused-appellant

is not pressed on merits and after perusing the record, nothing is

noticed which requires interference in the finding of guilt reached

by the learned trial Court. This Court does not wish to interfere in

the judgment passed by the learned trial Court qua conviction of

the accused-appellant. Accordingly, the judgments passed by the

learned trial Court qua conviction of the accused-appellant is

maintained.

10. As far as quantum of sentence is concerned, after perusing

judgment impugned, considering the submissions of learned

counsel for the parties; precedent law on the issue; accused-

(Uploaded on 25/11/2025 at 02:21:24 PM)

[2025:RJ-JD:50594] (4 of 5) [CRLA-51/1997]

appellant, who was only 18 years young boy at the time of

incident, has already suffered the agony of protracted trial,

spanning over a period of more than 30 years and he remained

incarcerated for some time after passing of the judgment, and no

evidence regarding previous conviction of the accused-appellant is

produced on record, this Court is of the opinion that if at this

stage, he is sent behind bars, it will result into reviving old enmity

and the same will not be conducive for peace and harmony in the

village and that family of the petitioner will also suffer, therefore,

no fruitful purpose would be served by sending him to jail now.

11. This Court is conscious of the judgments rendered in Alister

Anthony Pareira Vs. State of Maharashtra : (2012) 2 SCC

648 and Haripada Das Vs. State of W.B. : (1998) 9 SCC 678,

wherein, the Hon'ble Apex Court observed as under:

Alister Anthony Pareira (Supra)

"There is no straitjacket formula for sentencing an accused on proof of crime. The courts have evolved certain principles: twin objective of the sentencing policy is deterrence and correction. What sentence would meet the ends of justice depends on the facts and circumstances of each case and the court must keep in mind the gravity of the crime, motive for the crime, nature of the offence and all other attendant circumstances."

Haripada Das (Supra) "...considering the fact that the respondent had already undergone detention for some period and the case is pending for a pretty long time for which he had suffered both financial hardship and mental agony and also considering the fact that he had been released on bail as far back as on 17-1-1986, we feel that the ends of justice will be met in the facts of the case if the sentence is reduced to the period already undergone..."

12. Consequently, the judgment dated 15.01.1997 passed by

learned trial Court qua conviction of the accused-appellant for the

(Uploaded on 25/11/2025 at 02:21:24 PM)

[2025:RJ-JD:50594] (5 of 5) [CRLA-51/1997]

offence under Sections 354 IPC is affirmed but the quantum of

sentence awarded to the accused-appellant by the learned trial

Court is reduced to the period already undergone by him, which

would be sufficient and justifiable to serve interest of justice. The

accused-appellant is on bail. He need not to surrender. His bail

bonds be cancelled.