Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
Dinesh Kumar S/O Shri Rameshwar vs State Of Rajasthan on 13 August, 2025
Author: Bhuwan Goyal
Bench: Inderjeet Singh, Bhuwan Goyal
[2025:RJ-JP:30590-DB]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
D.B. Criminal Appeal (Db) No. 213/2021
Dinesh Kumar S/o Shri Rameshwar, Resident Of Village Heensla,
Police Station Thanagazi, District Alwar At Present Kashatkar, At
The Farm House Of Ramratan Roj, Kishanmanpura, Police Station
Govindgarh, District Jaipur
(At Present Confined At Central Jail Jaipur)
----Appellant
Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through P.p
----Respondent
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Gaurav Gupta
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Rajesh Choudhary, GA-cum-AAG
with Mr. Jitendra Singh Rathore, Addl.
GA
For Complainant(s) : Mr. Jay Bhardwaj
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE INDERJEET SINGH
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BHUWAN GOYAL
JUDGMENT RESERVED ON : 08/08/2025
JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED ON : 13/08/2025
PER BHUWAN GOYAL J. :
1. This criminal jail appeal under Section 383 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 has been registered on the letter petition sent by the accused-appellant Dinesh through Superintendent, Central Jail, Jaipur aggrieved by the impugned Judgment and Order dated 06.08.2019 passed by Special Judge, Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, Jaipur District in Sessions Case No. 626/2017 (214/2015) titled as "State of Rajasthan vs. Dinesh Kumar", vide which accused-appellant was convicted and sentenced as under :-
Offence Sentence Fine Default
sentence
u/s 363 IPC 5 years' R.I. Rs. 50,000/- 6 months' R.I.
(Downloaded on 05/09/2025 at 11:13:19 PM)
[2025:RJ-JP:30590-DB] (2 of 17) [CRLAD-213/2021]
u/s 366 IPC 7 years' R.I. Rs. 10,000/- 6 months' R.I.
u/s 5(L) r/w Life Imprisonment Rs.1,00,000/- 6 months' R.I. Sec. 6 of POCSO Act u/s 376(2) Life Imprisonment Rs.1,00,000/- 6 months' R.I.
(i) IPC till natural death (All sentences are ordered to run concurrently)
2. Brief facts relevant and germane for disposal of the present appeal are that on 19.10.2015, complainant "H" who is father of victim, submitted a complaint (Ex.P/7) in the court of Additional Judicial Magistrate, Chomu, District Jaipur to the effect that accused who was doing farming and living with his family in the neighboring village for farming, used to visit his house. On 14.10.2015 at around 6.00 a.m., his minor daughter i.e. victim, aged 16 years, suddenly went somewhere from the well in her residence, who took her mobile phone bearing No.76898xxxx with her. After searching for her in the neighborhood, he got the information that accused had come with his Commander car at 6.00 am, who lured the victim and took her away. The accused had borrowed Rs. 2,000/- from his maternal uncle Banshidhar's Dhaba located at Jaipur Tiraha, Shahpura. At that time, his daughter i.e. victim was also with him. After that, till date, the accused did not return with the victim. The mobile number of the accused 70623xxxxx was also switched off etc.
3. On the said complaint, First Information Report No.402/2015 was lodged at Police Station Govindgarh, District Jaipur for the offences under Sections 363 & 366 of I.P.C. and Section 3/4 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (for short "POCSO Act" hereinafter) and investigation was commenced. After conclusion of investigation, police submitted charge-sheet (Downloaded on 05/09/2025 at 11:13:19 PM) [2025:RJ-JP:30590-DB] (3 of 17) [CRLAD-213/2021] against accused-appellant for the offences under Sections 363, 366 & 376 of I.P.C. and Section 3/4 of POCSO Act before the District & Sessions Judge, Jaipur District, which took cognizance of aforesaid offences against accused-appellant and transferred the matter to the court of Special Judge, Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, Jaipur District (hereinafter referred to as 'trial court').
4. The trial court framed charges against accused-appellant for the offences under Sections 363, 366-A, 376(2)(i) & 376(2)(N) of I.P.C and Section 5(L)/6 of POCSO Act, which were read over and explained to him but he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. The prosecution examined total 13 witnesses and exhibited Ex.P/1 to Ex.P/37 documents to prove its case. After conclusion of prosecution evidence, accused-appellant was examined under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. and was confronted with the circumstances appearing against him in the prosecution case, which he denied and claimed that prosecution evidence was false, he was innocent and had been falsely implicated in the case. The accused- appellant did not wish to produce any oral or documentary evidence in his defence.
5. The trial court thereafter proceeded to hear arguments of the Public Prosecutor and the defence counsel, appreciated evidence available on record and delivered impugned Judgment dated 06.08.2019, whereby accused-appellant has been convicted for the offences under Sections 363, 366, 376(2)(N) & 376(2)(I) of I.P.C. and Section 5(L)/6 and 5(M)/6 of POCSO Act but sentenced for the offences under Sections 363, 366 & 376(2)(I) of I.P.C. and Section 5(L)/6 of POCSO Act, as stated above. Aggrieved with the (Downloaded on 05/09/2025 at 11:13:19 PM) [2025:RJ-JP:30590-DB] (4 of 17) [CRLAD-213/2021] same, present appeal has been filed by the accused-appellant before this Court.
6. Before dealing with the arguments of learned counsel for the parties, it would be fruitful to first peruse the evidence produced by the prosecution in this case.
7. P.W. 1 - victim is the star witness of the prosecution. She has basically reiterated the allegations made by her in the statement recorded under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. (Ex.P/6). In reply to a question as to in which school she studied, she has answered that she studied in Pragati Bal Bharti School, Kalwad. In her cross-examination, she has stated that Dinesh being a friend of his brother used to visit their house; both of them went to Khatushyam Ji, at that time, he told her that we both should go to the village outside. She has also stated that Dinesh came to their house the day after they went to Khatushyam. When he came home at 6 O'clock in morning, she, her mother, father and younger sister were there; Dinesh called her from the road; distance of the road from the house was very short; Dinesh told her to come here; when he shouted, no other people of the house came; only she could hear his voice; while leaving the house, she did not tell anyone at home that Dinesh was shouting outside. She has admitted that when she went out, her family members were busy with their work; she went from home without telling her family members. She has also stated that she went to Dinesh and asked him what he was saying, then he forcefully caught her hand and made her to sit in the vehicle. She has also admitted that jeep was open from front and back; there were houses of Ahirs in front of their house; buffaloes were also tied there; buffaloes were (Downloaded on 05/09/2025 at 11:13:19 PM) [2025:RJ-JP:30590-DB] (5 of 17) [CRLAD-213/2021] tired in a fence outside the house; people were milking buffaloes. She has also admitted that she took mobile with her. She has further stated that they stayed at the hotel of Dinesh's maternal uncle after ten minutes. There were two-three traffic lights before reaching the hotel. There used to be policemen present. Dinesh eaten food at his maternal uncle's hotel, she was sitting in the jeep. He parked the vehicle in front of the hotel. The vehicle was standing there for half an hour but she did not run away from there. After the hotel, they left for Jaipur. She has admitted that there was a police toll while coming to Jaipur. 2-3 policemen were standing on the said toll. They were watching the vehicles passing from there. She did not complaint anyone at the said toll. They came to Jaipur from hotel in another jeep; in which other persons were also coming. She did not tell those people about Dinesh taking her. They reached Jaipur by jeep and went to his sister's house on foot. His brother-in-law and sister were there. She has also stated that after eating food, a rented room was taken, which was arranged by his brother-in-law. His sister did not ask her anything and she also did not tell anything. They stayed at sister's house of Dinesh for an hour or two and then, they left from there. From there, Dinesh took her to Jogi's house; she did not know who those people were; she did not know where Jogi's house was; they reached there in 4-5 hours by vehicle, which they boarded from Jaipur; there were other passengers in the bus; there were both conductor and driver. She did not talk to people in the bus. She was sitting comfortably in the bus. They reached the house of Jogi's from bus and stayed in Jogi's house for 8-9 days.
(Downloaded on 05/09/2025 at 11:13:19 PM)[2025:RJ-JP:30590-DB] (6 of 17) [CRLAD-213/2021]
8. P.W. 2 is father of victim, who has reiterated the allegations made in the complaint (Ex.P/7). In his cross-examination, he has stated that the day when she had gone, she took mobile with her. He has two sons and two daughters. He did not know when eldest child was born. No birth certificate was got issued for him. He did not know exact age of his children, their mother knew.
9. P.W. 4 is mother of victim, who has deposed in her cross- examination that she did not remember in which year, she got married; name of her first child is "M" who was born at home; she did not know in which month and year "M" was born; after that "P" was born, then victim and then "S"; she did not know in which year these three children were born; she did not know how old they were today; no birth documents of her children were made; she did not even given birth documents of her children to the police; victim was fifth passed; no document was given to the school at the time of admission to show how old victim was at the time of admission; they did not fill any form at the time of her admission in the school; Master asked them to just sit in the school. She has admitted that at the time of leaving the house, victim took mobile and 2-3 thousand rupees with her. She has also admitted that her daughter did not tell her anything for 3-4 days after returning home. The villagers had asked her to file an FIR regarding where she had been for 3-4 days. The villagers had no idea about the friendship between his daughter and Dinesh. If her daughter had gone with Dinesh in the jeep on her own, she did not know. Her daughter did not tell her where she stayed of her own free will. Her daughter did not even take her to see where she stayed, what happened, she did not show her anything (Downloaded on 05/09/2025 at 11:13:19 PM) [2025:RJ-JP:30590-DB] (7 of 17) [CRLAD-213/2021] nor did she tell her anything. After 8-10 days, they filed an FIR but after coming back, her daughter did not even tell her name of the person, who had done what to him. The statement that she has given today was the same statement, she had given to the police.
10. P.W. 5 - Dr. Neeru Pathak, who medically examined the victim, has stated in her examination-in-chief that there were no injury on her person and no injury was found on her private parts in the internal examination. In her cross-examination, she has admitted that when victim came for medical examination, she did not tell why she had come for medical examination; there were no marks of injury, scratches; rubbing, redness etc. on the private parts of the victim and there was no discharge either; her hymen was old torn healed; in the FSL Report, semen was not found in her samples and in her opinion, no signs of recent forced intercourse were found.
11. P.W. 9 - Sandeep Sharma, who was Principal of Shiv Shakti Senior Secondary School, Khejroli, Chomu, Jaipur, has stated that on the police request, he issued date of birth certificate of victim who was studying in their school, on the basis of Scholar Register. As per Scholar Register, her date of birth is 27.06.2005.
12. P.W. 12 - Dr. Ramdhan Jat, who was the then Medical Officer at C.H.C. Govindgarh, has stated in his examination-in-chief that from the radiological observation of x-rays (Ex.P/28 to Ex.P/37), estimated age of the victim was found to be around 13 to 16 years. In the cross-examination, he has stated that in his opinion, age of the victim was stated to be around 13 to 16 years; appearance of the clavicle in the x-ray can be seen upto 20 years. (Downloaded on 05/09/2025 at 11:13:19 PM) [2025:RJ-JP:30590-DB] (8 of 17) [CRLAD-213/2021] He has admitted that age given in his opinion was an estimated age and the age given by him may vary as an exception.
13. We need not to refer to the testimony of other witnesses, who have participated in the investigation as they are formal witnesses.
14. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
15. Learned counsel for the appellant has very fairly submitted that he has not been challenging the conviction of the accused- appellant but questioning the quantum of sentence only. He has submitted that the trial court has gravelly erred in awarding maximum sentence of life imprisonment to the accused-appellant. It was not a case where maximum sentence prescribed ought to have been awarded. He has urged that legislature in its wisdom for offence of rape under Section 376(2)(i) and (m) of I.P.C. and Section 5(L) and (m)/6 of the POCSO Act has prescribed minimum sentence of ten years, therefore, there being no aggravating circumstances available even if entire testimony of the prosecutrix is taken at face value, no case for awarding maximum sentence is made out. He has also submitted that taking note of various factors including the age of the accused-appellant being 25 years at the time of the incident and hailing from a poor family, facing agony of trial for last almost eleven years, award of life imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1,00,000/-, in default, to further undergo six months' rigorous imprisonment for each of the offence under Section 5(L) r/w Section 6 of POCSO Act and Section 376(2)
(i) of I.P.C. is excessive. He has thus prayed that substantive sentence awarded to the accused-appellant be reduced to the minimum period of sentence of ten years.
(Downloaded on 05/09/2025 at 11:13:19 PM)[2025:RJ-JP:30590-DB] (9 of 17) [CRLAD-213/2021]
16. On the other hand, learned Government Advocate while supporting judgment and order of conviction, has submitted that trial court after appreciating entire material as well as evidence on record has rightly convicted and sentenced against accused- appellant for the offences alleged in the present case, which does not warrant any interference by this Court.
17. He has placed on record custody certificate of the accused- appellant dated 12.05.2025, according to which, accused- appellant has undergone 10 years, 10 months and 6 days sentence as on 12.05.2025 and thereafter, a period of almost three months has passed.
18. Learned counsel appearing for the complainant has stated that he has no objection, if the sentence awarded to the accused- appellant is reduced.
19. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced at the Bar and have gone through impugned judgment and minutely sifted through the evidence available on record.
20. In the instant case, as per school record, date of birth of the victim is stated to be 27.06.2005 and incident is stated to have taken place on 14.10.2015 and thus, victim was minor on the date of incident and she has made allegations of sexually assaulting her by accused-appellant. Further, accused-appellant has not challenged his conviction for the offences under Sections 363, 366, 376(2)(n) & 376(2)(I) of I.P.C. and Section 5(L)/6 and 5(M)/6 of POCSO Act. Hence, after appreciating the evidence available on record, we are of the opinion that no error has been committed by the trial court in convicting accused-appellant for the offences alleged against him.
(Downloaded on 05/09/2025 at 11:13:19 PM)[2025:RJ-JP:30590-DB] (10 of 17) [CRLAD-213/2021]
21. So far as order of sentence is concerned, learned counsel for the appellant has argued that the trial court has gravelly erred in awarding maximum sentence of life imprisonment to the accused- appellant. He has also submitted that accused-appellant has undergone more than eleven years of sentence including remission. He has, therefore, prayed that sentence of imprisonment awarded to the accused-appellant may be reduced to the period already undergone by him.
22. It is pertinent to note here that minimum sentence for the offence under Section 376(2)(i) of I.P.C. (prior to amendment of 2018) was as under :-
"376.(1) Whoever, except in the cases provided for in sub-section (2), commits rape, shall be punished with rigorous imprisonment for either description for a term which shall not be less than seven years, but which may extend to imprisonment for life, and shall also be liable to fine.
(2) Whoever, -
(a) to (h) ... xxx ...
(i) commits rape on a woman when she
is under sixteen years of age; or
(j) to (n) ... xxx ...
shall be punished with rigorous imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than ten years, but which may extend to imprisonment for life, which shall mean imprisonment for the remainder of that person's natural life, and shall also be liable to fine."
The minimum sentence for the offence under Section 5(L) of POCSO Act, 2012 as provided under Section 6 of the POCSO Act, 2012 (prior to amendment of the year 2019) reads as under :-
"6. Punishment for aggravated penetrative sexual assault :- Whoever, commits aggravated penetrative sexual assault, shall be punished with rigorous imprisonment for a term which shall not be (Downloaded on 05/09/2025 at 11:13:19 PM) [2025:RJ-JP:30590-DB] (11 of 17) [CRLAD-213/2021] less than ten years but which may extend to imprisonment for life and shall also be liable to fine."
23. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of M.P. vs. Udham reported in (2019) 10 SCC 300 has observed as under :-
"12. Sentencing for crimes has to be analyzed on the touch stone of three tests viz., crime test, criminal test and comparative proportionality test. Crime test involves factors like extent of planning, choice of weapon, modus of crime, disposal modus (if any), role of the accused, anti-social or abhorrent character of the crime, state of victim. Criminal test involves assessment of factors such as age of the criminal, gender of the criminal, economic conditions or social background of the criminal, motivation for crime, availability of defense, state of mind, instigation by the deceased or any one from the deceased group, adequately represented in the trial, disagreement by a judge in the appeal process, repentance, possibility of reformation, prior criminal record (not to take pending cases) and any other relevant factor (not an exhaustive list).
13. Additionally, we may note that under the crime test, seriousness needs to be ascertained. The seriousness of the crime may be ascertained by (i) bodily integrity of the victim; (ii) loss of material support or amenity; (iii) extent of humiliation; and
(iv) privacy breach.
24. In the case of Sunil Dutt Sharma vs. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) reported in (2014) 4 SCC 376, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has opined that although, the principles of sentencing evolved by the Supreme Court deal generally with the cases of death penalty, however, said principles will also govern offences which prescribe lesser sentence. Therefore, the Courts should not only look at the circumstances of particular crime, but should also consider the circumstances evolved around the criminal. Repeatedly, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that maximum (Downloaded on 05/09/2025 at 11:13:19 PM) [2025:RJ-JP:30590-DB] (12 of 17) [CRLAD-213/2021] sentence prescribed by law should be imposed only in the rarest of rare cases. Therefore, in case a higher punishment is given from the minimum one, aggravating circumstances must be spelt out by the Court before the maximum sentence can be inflicted.
25. In the case of Bavo vs. State of Gujarat reported in (2012) 2 SCC 684, the observations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in relevant paras are as under :-
"5) Learned counsel appearing for the appellant fairly states that he is not challenging the conviction but questioning the quantum of sentence only. According to him, taking note of various factors including the age of the appellant-accused being 18-19 years at the time of the incident and hailing from a poor family, award of life imprisonment and a fine of Rs.20,000/-, in default, to further undergo RI for three years is excessive. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent - State fairly submitted that the Court is free to impose appropriate sentence in terms of Section 376(2)(f) of the IPC.
6) In view of the limited submission, there is no need to go into the finding regarding conviction under Section 376(2)(f) and 506(2) of the IPC. The only question to be considered is whether the sentence of life imprisonment and a fine of Rs.20,000/- is reasonable or excessive.
7) Section 376 speaks about the punishment for rape.
Sub-section(2)(f) makes it clear that whoever commits rape on a woman when she is under 12 years of age shall be punished with RI for a term which shall not be less than 10 years but which may be for life and shall also be liable to fine. Proviso appended to sub-section (2) makes it clear that the Court may, for adequate and special reasons to be mentioned in the judgment, impose a sentence of imprisonment of either description for a term of less than 10 years.
8) It is clear from the above statutory provision that for the offence of rape on a girl under 12 years of age, punishment shall not be less than 10 years but which may extend to life and also to fine shows that (Downloaded on 05/09/2025 at 11:13:19 PM) [2025:RJ-JP:30590-DB] (13 of 17) [CRLAD-213/2021] the legislature intended to adopt strictness in awarding sentence if the victim is below 12 years of age. No doubt, the proviso to Section 376(2)(f) lays down that the Court may, for adequate and special reasons to be mentioned in the judgment, impose a sentence of imprisonment of either description for a term of less than 10 years. It is settled law that courts are obliged to respect the legislative mandate in the matter of awarding of sentence in all such cases. In the absence of any special and adequate reasons, recourse to proviso mentioned above cannot be applied in a casual manner.
9) Learned counsel for the appellant relied on a decision of this Court in Narayanamma (Kum) vs. State of Karnataka and Others, (1994) 5 SCC 728 and contended that the life imprisonment is not warranted and sentence may be reduced to the period already undergone. The said decision relates to the rape on a minor girl aged 14 years. While the trial Judge convicted and sentenced the accused to three years RI, the High Court reversed the same and acquitted the accused. It was challenged before this Court. After considering the entire materials, this Court set aside the order of the High Court and affirmed the conclusion arrived at by the trial Court. Though this Court expressed displeasure in awarding only three years RI for the crime of rape, taking note of length of time, not inclined to enhance it and confirmed the sentence awarded by the trial Court.
10) Counsel for the appellant relied on another decision of this Court in Rajendra Datta Zarekar vs. State of Goa, (2007) 14 SCC 560. The said case also relates to the offence under Section 376. The victim was aged about 6 years and the accused was aged about 20 years. Ultimately, this Court confirmed the conviction and sentence of 10 years as awarded by the High Court. However, the fine amount of Rs. 10,000/- awarded under Section 376(2)(f) being found to be excessive reduced to Rs. 1,000/-.
11) Considering the fact that the victim, in the case on hand, was aged about 7 years on the date of the incident and the accused was in the age of 18/19 years and also of the fact that the incident occurred nearly 10 years ago, the award of life imprisonment which is maximum prescribed is not warranted and (Downloaded on 05/09/2025 at 11:13:19 PM) [2025:RJ-JP:30590-DB] (14 of 17) [CRLAD-213/2021] also in view of the mandate of Section 376(2)(f) IPC, we feel that the ends of justice would be met by imposing RI for 10 years. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant informed this Court that the appellant had already served nearly 10 years.
12) Coming to the quantum of fine, in the case on hand, the learned trial Judge has imposed Rs.20,000/-, in default, to undergo RI for three years, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the accused hails from a poor family and was working as an agricultural labourer and is not in a position to pay such a huge amount as fine which is not disputed by the State. Taking note of all these aspects, we reduce the fine of Rs. 20,000/- to Rs. 1,000/-, in default, to further undergo RI for one month.
13) In view of the above discussion, the conviction imposed on the appellant herein is confirmed. However, the sentence of life imprisonment is modified to RI for 10 years with a fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default, to further undergo RI for one month."
26. In the case of Chanda Lal @ Harchanda v. State of Rajasthan (D.B. Criminal Appeal No. 947/2005) decided on 26.11.2014, this Court reduced the sentence from life imprisonment to ten years. In the said case, age of the prosecutrix was between five to six years. However, considering the fact that there was no aggravating circumstances for imposing the maximum punishment, this Court had reduced the sentence from life imprisonment to ten years.
27. This Court in the case of Sohan Lal vs. State of Rajasthan (D.B. Criminal Appeal No. 13/2006) decided on 18.02.2015 followed the view taken by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of Sunil Dutt Sharma (supra) and Bavo (supra) and observed as under :-
"In the present case, the victim is a small girl. But there are no other aggravating circumstances beyond the age of the victim. The appellant happens to be a (Downloaded on 05/09/2025 at 11:13:19 PM) [2025:RJ-JP:30590-DB] (15 of 17) [CRLAD-213/2021] young man, aged about thirty years, when the occurrence had occurred; he has faced along criminal trial; he has served a sentence of about nine years. Therefore, the case does not have any aggravating circumstances which would warrant imposition of the maximum sentence provided by law for offence under Section 376(1) IPC.
Therefore, keeping in mind the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sunil Dutt Sharma(supra), and in the case of Bavo @ Manubhai Ambalal Thakore (supra) and followed by this court in the case of Chanda Lal @ Harchanda (supra), this court confirms the conviction of the appellant, Sohan Lal, for offences under Sections 363, 366 and 376(1) IPC and confirms the sentence for offences under Sections 363 and 366 IPC, but reduces the sentence for offence under Section 376(1) IPC from life imprisonment to ten years of rigorous imprisonment. However, we enhance the fine from Rs.1000/- to Rs.10,000/- while maintaining the default clause prescribed by the trial court. The amount of fine shall be paid to the victim by way of compensation. With the above modification and reduction of sentence for offence under Section 376(1) IPC, i.e. from life imprisonment to ten years, the present appeal is disposed of by enhancing the amount of fine from Rs.1000/- to Rs.10,000/- (ten thousand) which shall be paid to the victim by way of compensation, while maintaining default clause prescribed by the trial court.
As a parting note, we have our reservation regarding capacity of the appellant to pay fine imposed by the trial court."
28. In light of the aforesaid ratio of law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, if we examine the evidence in the present case, it reveals that at the time of incident, accused-appellant was a 25 years old young boy, he has been facing agony of trial for last around eleven years, there is no evidence of previous conviction against him and his jail conduct is also reported as satisfactory, the conduct of the victim in her cross-examination that she (Downloaded on 05/09/2025 at 11:13:19 PM) [2025:RJ-JP:30590-DB] (16 of 17) [CRLAD-213/2021] travelled with the accused-appellant to different public places by various public conveyance and did not make any complaint to anyone, in these circumstances, in light of the principles propounded by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, we are of the considered opinion that ends of justice would be met if life imprisonment remainder of natural life is reduced to the period already undergone by accused-appellant.
29. Accordingly, while maintaining conviction of the accused- appellant for the offences 363, 366, 376(2)(n) & 376(2)(i) of I.P.C. and Sections 5(L)/6 & 5(M)/6 of POCSO Act, 2012, we reduce the sentence of life imprisonment remainder of natural life awarded to the accused-appellant to the period already undergone by him for the offences under Section 376(2)(i) of I.P.C. and Section 5(L)/6 of POCSO Act. However, we maintain the fine of Rs.1,00,000/- for each offence imposed by the trial court and default clause prescribed. Sentence awarded to the accused- appellant for the offences under Sections 363 & 366 of I.P.C. shall be maintained and same as ordered by the trial court, shall run concurrently with the main offence under Section 376(2)(i) of I.P.C. and Section 5(L)/6 of POCSO Act.
30. The appeal is partly allowed with the modifications in the order of sentence as above. The accused-appellant is in custody, he shall be released forthwith, if not required in any other case, subject to deposition of the fine amount imposed by the trial court.
31. The appellant is directed to furnish bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- and a surety bond in the like amount in accordance with provisions of Section 437-A of Cr.P.C./481 of B.N.S.S. before (Downloaded on 05/09/2025 at 11:13:19 PM) [2025:RJ-JP:30590-DB] (17 of 17) [CRLAD-213/2021] the Registrar (Judicial) of this Court within four weeks from the date of his release, to the effect that in the event of filing of special leave petition against this judgment or on grant of leave, the appellant, on receipt of notice thereof, shall appear before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The bail bonds will be effective for a period of six months.
32. A copy of the judgment along with original record be send back to the trial court forthwith.
(BHUWAN GOYAL),J (INDERJEET SINGH),J
INDER/76
(Downloaded on 05/09/2025 at 11:13:19 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)