Supreme Court - Daily Orders
Om Parkash vs State Of Rajasthan on 4 July, 2014
R Crl.A. No. Of 2014 @ SLP(Crl.) No. 4658 of 2013
ITEM NO.43 COURT NO.11 SECTION
II
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No(s). 4658/2013
(Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 12/12/2012
in SBCRA No. 460/2010 passed by the High Court OF Judicature for
Rajasthan At Jodhpur)
OM PARKASH Petitio
ner(s)
VERSUS
STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ANR. Respond
ent(s)
(With application for exemption from filing official translation
and office report)
Date : 04/07/2014 This petition was called on for hearing today.
CORAM :
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE FAKKIR MOHAMED IBRAHIM KALIFULLA
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE A.K. SIKRI
For Petitioner(s) Mr. Tarun Shokeen, Adv.
Mr. Janesh Singh, Adv.
Mr. Abhishek Atrey ,Adv.
For Respondent(s) Mr. Ram Naresh Yadav, Adv.
For State Mr. Milind Kumar, Adv.
For RR 2 Mr. Naresh Kumar, Adv.
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following
O R D E R
Leave granted.
The appeal stands allowed in terms of the signed Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by Kalyani Gupta Date: 2014.07.19 order. The second respondent shall surrender before the 16:11:08 IST Reason: trail court forthwith failing he be taken into custody Crl.A. No. Of 2014 @ SLP(Crl.) No. 4658 of 2013 and produced before the court for passing necessary order to undergo remaining part of the sentence.
(KALYANI GUPTA) (SHARDA KAPOOR)
COURT MASTER COURT MASTER
[SIGNED ORDER IS PLACED ON THE FILE.] Page No. 2 Crl.A. No. Of 2014 @ SLP(Crl.) No. 4658 of 2013 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1355 OF 2014 ARISING OUT OF SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRL.) NO. 4658 OF 2013 OM PARKASH ..... APPELLAN T VERSUS STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ANR. ..... RESPONDENT S O R D E R Leave granted.
2. This appeal by way of special leave has been preferred by the complainant aggrieved by the judgment of the High Court having interfered with the sentence imposed on respondent No. 2 herein. Respondent No. 2 herein was proceeded against for the offences committed under Section 376 read with Sections 511, 377 of the Indian Penal Code and also under Section 3(1)(xii) and 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.
3. The grievance of the appellant-complainant against the accused - respondent No. 2 herein was that the eight year old daughter of the appellant by name Neel Kamal was studying in Upper Primary School. While returning from her tuition she was caught hold of by respondent No. 2, Crl.A. No. Of 2014 @ SLP(Crl.) No. 4658 of 2013 the accused and was subjected to the offence of rape. The victim was examined as P.W. 3 who narrated the occurrence as under:
"...then he took her inside and put off her clothes. Then he too put off his clothes. Then he opened chain of his pant and put his su-su wala (penis) in my hand. Then he makes me sit in his lap and he himself sat on a chair. Then he put his su-su wala (penis) on her su-su wali (vagina) then pulled me from above. Then it pained me. I started weeping. Then he said that you don’t weep, nothing will happen...."
4. She was also examined by the doctor P.W. 5, Dr. Alok Bhati who produced the Medical Report, which also supported the version of P.W. 3, the prosecutrix. In these circumstances, the trial court by a d etailed analysis of the evidence held that the offence alleged against the respondent was conclusively proved and the prosecutrix being a scheduled caste girl, the of fence under Section 3(1)(xii) was also made out. The respo ndent No. 2 was therefore, sentenced to undergo te n years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 5,000/- for offence under Section 376/511 IPC and a period of two years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1,000/- with default clause for the offence under Section 3(1)(xii) and sentence for five yeas rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs. 2000/- under Section 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Caste Page No. 2 Crl.A. No. Of 2014 @ SLP(Crl.) No. 4658 of 2013 and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.
5. Respondent No. 2 herein preferred an a ppeal as against the said conviction and the sentence imposed before the High Court. While making submissions on behalf of the second respondent before the High Co urt, the counsel after arguing for some time made a statement that the second respondent did not want to challen ge the conviction on merits and prayed that the accused second respondent may be released by reducing the sentence to the period of imprisonment already undergone. Respond ent No. 2 was at that point of time in custody for five years. The above submission made on behalf of respondent No. 2 herein was seriously opposed by the learned Public Prosecutor. The learned Judge by merely ci ting one decision of the High Court and another decision of this Court without assigning any reason or justifiable grounds straightaway proceeded to hold that the period of five years already undergone by the respondent No. 2 would be sufficient and reduced the punishment on that sole ground. This judgment was not challenged by the respondent-State as far as the merits of the case was concerned. The complainant alone has come forward with this appeal by way of special leave.
6. Having perused the judgment of the High Court, we find that for a serious offence committed on a hapless Page No. 3 Crl.A. No. Of 2014 @ SLP(Crl.) No. 4658 of 2013 girl of eight years old (a school going girl) who has also narrated the gruesome incident before the court below and whose evidence was also duly supported by the doctor who examined her and the trial court was convinced that it was such a gruesome offence committed by respondent No. 2 the appropriate punishment would be 10 years and various other punishments for other offences. If the said punishment was to be interfered with, the High Court should have given adequate reasons. It could not have passed the impugned judgment in such a casual way for mere asking by reducing the sentence to the period already undergone. We are, therefore, convinced that the judgment of the High Court cannot be sustained and the same is accordingly, set aside and the judgment of the trial court stands restored.
7. The appeal stands allowed and the second respondent shall surrender before the trial court forthwith failing he be taken into custody and produced before the court for passing necessary order to undergo remaining part of the sentence.
..................................J [FAKKIR MOHAMED IBRAHIM KALIFULLA] ..................................J [A.K. SIKRI] NEW DELHI JULY 04, 2014.
Page No. 4