Skip to content


Sukhdeo Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan - Court Judgment

SooperKanoon Citation

Subject

Criminal

Court

Rajasthan High Court

Decided On

Case Number

Criminal Revn. Petn. No. 22 of 1999

Judge

Reported in

2002CriLJ1975

Acts

Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860 - Sections 377 and 511

Appellant

Sukhdeo Singh

Respondent

State of Rajasthan

Appellant Advocate

M.K. Garg, Adv.

Respondent Advocate

Panne Singh, Public Prosecutor

Excerpt:


- .....petitioner by the learned additional sessions judge, raisinghnagar but it has been argued on behalf of the accused petitioner that looking to the fact that accused petitioner has remained in jail for more than 8 months and looking to the entire facts and circusmtances of the case, it would be just and proper to reduce the sentence of accused petitioner to the period already undergone by him.11. i have heard both and gone through the record of the case.12. since the findings of conviction recorded by the learned additional sessions judge, raisinghnagar have not been challenged in this revision petition, therefore, this revision petition against conviction of the accused petitioner for offence under sections 377/511, i.p.c. is liable to be dismissed.13. however, on point of sentence looking to the fact that accused petitioner has remained in jail from 5-2-1993 to 8-7-1993 and 6-11-1996 to 17-1-1997 i.e. for about 8 months ends of justice would be met if the accused petitioner is sentenced to the period already undergone by him for offence under sections 377/511, i.p.c.14. accordingly, this revision petition is disposed of in the following manner :the revision petition filed by.....

Judgment:


ORDER

Sunil Kumar Garg, J.

1. This revision petition has been filed by the accused petitioner against the judgment dated 6-11-1996 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Raisinghnagar in criminal appeal No. 21/93 by which he partly allowed the appeal filed by the accused petitioner and convicted the accused petitioner for offence under Sections 377/511, I.P.C. in place of Section 377, I.P.C. and sentenced him to 1 year's R.I. and a fine of Rs. 2000/- in default to further undergo 2 months S.I. in place of 2 years R.I. and the judgment and order dated 30-6-1993 passed by the learned Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Anoopgarh was modified accordingly.

2. It arises in the following circumstances :

On 29-9-1992, PW 2 Mukhtyar Singh filed a written report Ex. P/l with the C.I., Police Station, Anoopgarh stating that accused petitioner had committed sodomy with his daughter PW 1 Nikki.

3. On this report Ex.P/1, the police chalked out regular FIR Ex.P/7 and started investigation.

4. During investigation, PW 1 Nikki was got medically examined by PW 5 Dr. Kamlesh and her medical report is Ex. P/4.

5. The accused petitioner was arrested through Fard Ex. P/6 on 5-2-1993.

6. After investigation the police filed challan against the accused petitioner for offence under Section 377, I.P.C.

7. On 30-3-1993, the learned Judicial Magistrate framed charge for offence under Section 377, I.P.C. against the accused petitioner who pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

8. After conclusion of the trial the learned trial Magistrate convicted the accused petitioner for offence under Section 377, I.P.C. and sentenced him as stated above.

9. Against the judgment and order dated 30-6-1993 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, the accused petitioner preferred an appeal and the appeal filed by the accused petitioner was partly allowed in the manner as stated above.

10. In this revision petition the learned counsel for the accused petitioner has not challenged the findings of conviction for offence under Sections 377/511, I.P.C. recorded against the accused petitioner by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Raisinghnagar but it has been argued on behalf of the accused petitioner that looking to the fact that accused petitioner has remained in jail for more than 8 months and looking to the entire facts and circusmtances of the case, it would be just and proper to reduce the sentence of accused petitioner to the period already undergone by him.

11. I have heard both and gone through the record of the case.

12. Since the findings of conviction recorded by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Raisinghnagar have not been challenged in this revision petition, therefore, this revision petition against conviction of the accused petitioner for offence under Sections 377/511, I.P.C. is liable to be dismissed.

13. However, on point of sentence looking to the fact that accused petitioner has remained in jail from 5-2-1993 to 8-7-1993 and 6-11-1996 to 17-1-1997 i.e. for about 8 months ends of justice would be met if the accused petitioner is sentenced to the period already undergone by him for offence under Sections 377/511, I.P.C.

14. Accordingly, this revision petition is disposed of in the following manner :

The revision petition filed by the accused petitioner Mohan Lal against his conviction is dismissed and his conviction for offence under Sections 377/511, I.P.C. recorded by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Raisinghnagar vide judgment dated 6-11-1996 is maintained.

However, on point of sentence, this revision petition is partly allowed in the manner that sentence awarded to the accused petitioner by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Raisinghnagar vide judgment dated 6-11-1996 for offence under Sections 377/511, I.P.C. is reduced to the period already undergone by him.

Since the accused is on bail, he need not surrender. His, bail bonds are hereby cancelled.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organize Client Files //