Janki Lal Vs. State of Rajasthan - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
penal code - section 352--sodomy--sentence--incidence of 1974--appeal not filed by state--no charge framed under section 357 511--held, it would not be in interest of justice to enhance sentence.;appeal dismissed - motor vehicles act, 1988 [c.a. no. 59/1988]sections 163-a & 166; [r.m. lodha, shiv kumar sharma & ashok parihar, jj] award passed by tribunal under section 163-a nature of held, the award passed by tribunal under section 163-a of act under structured formula is a final award and once that award has been passed, no further award under chapter xii of m.v. act could be passed by the tribunal. the provisions contained in sections 163-a and 166 of act provide for two different modes but the two modes cannot simultaneously be invoked by the claimants. the claimant must opt/elect to go either for a proceeding under section 163-a or under section 166 of the m.v. act but not under both. the award under section 163-a is final and cannot be described as interim and no proceeding for compensation under section 166 can be undertaken once the award is declared under section 163-a. - 3. the accused is even then not satisfied and has come in appeal.guman mal lodha, j.1. the sacred and pious relationship of teacher and student was abused and mis-used by a teacher in this case by calling him and than trying to commit sodomy. the boy was student of 4th class.2. the surprising feature of the case is that on these allegations, which have been found to be proved, the trial court framed charge under section 355 ipc and convicted the accused for offence under section 352, ipc. the trial court went a step further and granted probation.3. the accused is even then not satisfied and has come in appeal.4. after hearing learned counsel for the parties and the learned public prosecutor, i was inclined to issue notice of enhancement as the offence alleged to be proved, appears to be of very serious nature. however, since no charge has been framed under section 357 read with section 511, ipc and further because the state has not filed any appeal, i am of the opinion that after the lapse of such long time, when the offence is of 1974, it would not be in the interest of justice to enhance the sentence now.5. in my opinion, the conviction is based on just and proper appreciation of evidence and calls for no interference. if any interference is to be done, it can only be done by way of enhancement of sentence, which again would now be inexpedient at this stage.6. it is unfortunate that a child reading in 4th class (badri), was called by the teacher, the accused jankilal, and then was assaulted. it is very rare that such cases come to the courts because mostly students, more so children, choose to suffer silently such atrocities and even sex overtones of the teachers.7. however, since no interference is to be done, it would not be in the interest of justice to mention in detail the facts and discuss the entire evidence afresh. in fact realising the gravity of the offence, learned counsel was not in a position even to seriously press the appeal.8. consequently, the appeal fails and is hereby dismissed.