Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Dinesh vs State on 8 February, 2011
Author: Vineet Kothari
Bench: Vineet Kothari
S.B.CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 409/2007
Dinesh vs. State of Raj.
Order dt:8/2/2011
1/4
S.B.CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 409/2007
(Dinesh vs. State of Raj.)
DATE OF ORDER : 8/2/2011
HON'BLE DR.JUSTICE VINEET KOTHARI
Mr.Sukesh Bhati, for the appellant.
Mr.J.Gehlot, for the complainant.
Ms. Chandra Lekha, P.P.
1. The present appeal is directed against the order dated 18/5/2007 passed by learned Addl. Sessions Judge (Fast Track), Nagaur convicting the accused appellant under Section 376 IPC in sessions case no. 62/2006 and sentenced him to undergo seven years RI with fine of Rs.1000/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo two months RI.
2. Succinctly, the facts of the case are that on 3/9/2006 at 5.00 pm the complainant Smt. Ram Kanwari with her husband Ram Sinwar lodged a report at Police Station Rol to the effect that on 23/8/2006 when her husband and mother-in-law had gone to village Talanpur and she was alone in the Dhani and at about 12 noon when she was in the field, the accused Dinesh came there and forcibly caught her from behind and made her to fall down and committed rape on her and soon when the accused taken off his hand from her mouth, she raised hue and cry and on hearing her cry, her brother-in-law (Jeth) Premsukh came there and he also saw the accused committing rape on her. On seeing Premsukh, the accused Dinesh ran away. Premsukh S.B.CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 409/2007 Dinesh vs. State of Raj.
Order dt:8/2/2011 2/4 also informed the husband of the complainant and her mother-in-law about incident on telephone. It is further alleged in the report that accused along with his father, mother and brothers came to their `Dhani' and threatened them of dire consequences if any report is lodged against Dinesh. On this report, a case was registered by the police under Section 376 IPC and investigation was conducted. Upon investigation, the police filed challan against the accused in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Jayal on 29/9/2006 from where the case was committed to the Court of Sessions and charge was framed against the accused appellant Dinesh, who denied the same and claimed trial.
3. During trial, prosecution examined P.W.1 Ramkanvri, P.W.2 Ram Sinvar, P.W.3 Prem Sukh, P.W.4 Ganshyam, P.W.5 Dr.Preeti Mathur, P.W.6 Dr.Rajendra & P.W.7 Nisar Khan.
4. The learned trial on the basis of evidence on record and statements of prosecution witnesses and considering the defence of the accused came to the conclusion that prosecution was able to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt and there is no reasons to disbelieve the statement of prosecutrix, who is married. In the circumstances, the learned trial court convicted the accused for the offence under Section 376 IPC.
5. Learned counsel for the accused appellant, at the outset, S.B.CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 409/2007 Dinesh vs. State of Raj.
Order dt:8/2/2011 3/4 submitted that he does not press the appeal on merits. He, however, prays that lenient view of the matter may be taken looking to the age of the prosecutrix & the accused appellant to be 29 & 22 years respectively on the date of incident i.e. 23/8/2006. He submits that the accused appellant would also pay the amount of liquidated damages/compensation, if the Court is inclined to impose under Section 357 Cr.P.C. He also submitted that the accused appellant is behind bars for last more than four and a half years.
6. On the other hand, learned Public Prosecutor and learned counsel for the complainant submits that the order of conviction passed by the learned trial court is just and proper and requires no interference by this Court in the present appeal and no lenient view is required to be taken in favour of the accused appellant in a case under Section 376 IPC.
7. Having heard the learned counsels at the bar, since the learned counsel for the accused appellant does not want to press the present appeal on merits and prays for taking a lenient view in the matter and that the accused appellant is in custody for almost four and a half years out of the substantive sentence of seven years awarded by the learned trial court, this Court, without going into the merits of the case, is inclined to partly allow the present appeal of the accused petitioner by reducing the substantive sentence of seven years RI to S.B.CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 409/2007 Dinesh vs. State of Raj.
Order dt:8/2/2011 4/4 five years RI while upholding the conviction of the appellant Dinesh under Section 376 IPC.
8. Accordingly, the present appeal is partly allowed & while upholding the conviction of the present appellant Dinesh under Section 376 IPC vide order dated 18/5/2007 passed by learned Addl. Sessions Judge (Fast Track),Nagaur, the substantive sentence of seven years RI with fine of Rs.1000/- is reduced to five years RI with fine of Rs.1000/-. It is further directed that the appellant shall pay compensation to the tune of Rs.25,000/- to the prosecutrix Ram Kanvari within a period of three months from the date of his release. If the said compensation is not paid within the stipulated time, the appellant shall further undergo simple imprisonment for one year.
9. The present criminal appeal is accordingly partly allowed as indicated above.
(DR.VINEET KOTHARI), J.
item no.8 baweja/-