Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
Habburam Son Of Shri Shyonath Alias ... vs State Of Rajasthan, Through P.P on 17 January, 2019
Author: Pankaj Bhandari
Bench: Pankaj Bhandari
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Criminal Revision No. 1472/2018
Habburam Son Of Shri Shyonath Alias Sohan Lal, By Caste
Meena, Resident Of Near Water Works Kathumar, Police Station
Kathumar, District Alwar (Rajasthan)
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through P.p., Rajasthan
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Girish Khandelwal For Respondent(s) : Mr. R.R. Singh Rathore, PP HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PANKAJ BHANDARI Judgment / Order 17/01/2019
1. Petitioner has preferred this revision petition aggrieved by judgment and order dated 04.10.2016 passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Rajgarh, District Alwar, whereby the petitioner has been convicted for offence under Section 419, 354, 170 & 323 IPC and has been sentenced to undergo two years rigorous imprisonment for offence under Section 419 IPC and fine of Rs.2000/- and on non-payment of fine to further undergo two months simple imprisonment, for offence under Section 354 IPC, petitioner has been sentenced one year rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs.1,000/- on non-payment of fine to further undergo one month simple imprisonment, for offence under Section 170 IPC, he has been sentenced two years simple imprisonment and fine of Rs.2,000/- on non-payment of fine to further undergo two months simple imprisonment and for offence under Section 323 (2 of 3) [CRLR-1472/2018] IPC, he has been sentenced for six months simple imprisonment and fine of Rs.1,000/- on non-payment of fine to further undergo one month simple imprisonment.
2. It is contended by counsel for the petitioner that the conviction under Section 419 IPC cannot be sustained as the ingredients of Section 419 IPC are not made out. It is also contended that since the petitioner has been convicted for offence under Section 170 IPC, there was no justification for convicting him under Section 419 IPC.
3. Counsel for the petitioner, however, submits that he does not want to press the revision petition on merits. His only prayer is for deduction of the sentence as petitioner has faced the agony of trial for the last fourteen years.
4. Learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the revision petition. His contention is that petitioner posing himself as doctor entered female ward of the hospital and has outraged modesty of a female patient.
5. I have considered the contentions.
6. Taking note of the fact that the matter is of the years, 2004, petitioner has been convicted under Section 170 IPC, I do not find any justification for upholding the conviction under Section 419 IPC. Conviction under Section 419 IPC is set aside, however, Court below has not assigned any reason for not extending the benefit of probation, hence, I deem it proper to reduce the sentence from two years to one year, fine however, would remain the same.
7. Accordingly, revision petition is partly allowed. While upholding the conviction and sentence under section 354 & 323 IPC. Conviction under Section 419 IPC is set aside and sentence awarded under Section 170 IPC is reduced from two years to one (3 of 3) [CRLR-1472/2018] year, the remaining part of the sentence and fine awarded by the Court below will remain unaltered.
8. Application for suspension of sentence stands disposed.
(PANKAJ BHANDARI),J Arti/53 Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)