Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
Dharam Singh@Dharmo vs State Of Rajasthan Through Pp on 28 April, 2017
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT
JAIPUR.
..
S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 593 / 2014.
Dharam Singh @ Dharmo S/o Shri Mohar Singh B/c Jatav, R/o
Supawas, Thana Kumher, Distt. Bharatpur (accused Petitioner is
Presently in Central Jail Sewar Bharatpur)
----Petitioner
Versus
State of Rajasthan Through PP
----Respondent
_____________________________________________________
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Kartar Singh Faujdar.
Mr. Hari Kishan Sharma.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Rishiraj Singh, PP.
_____________________________________________________
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK MAHESHWARI
Order
28/04/2017
BY THE COURT:
1. Though the matter has been listed in the "Admission" category, learned counsel appearing for the accused/petitioner prays that the matter may be finally heard and decided on the revision petition as the record of the Courts below has already been requisitioned and is available. The prayer made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, to which, learned Public Prosecutor has also not opposed, is granted.
(2 of 5) [CRLR-593/2014]
2. This Criminal Revision Petition has been preferred on behalf of the petitioner Dharam Singh @ Dharmo challenging the judgment dated 05.06.2012 passed by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kumher, District Bharatpur by which, the accused/petitioner was convicted for the offence punishable under Section 377 IPC and sentenced with rigorous imprisonment for seven (07) years and a fine of Rs.5,000/-, for default of payment of which, he was ordered to undergo rigorous imprisonment additionally for two months.
3. On preferring appeal against the said order, the same was also rejected by learned Appellate Court vide judgment dated 23.07.2013. However, the sentence for default in payment of fine was converted from rigorous imprisonment into simple imprisonment for a period of two months.
4. Both these judgments have been challenged by way of filing this criminal revision petition.
5. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that on 17.01.2004, the accused/petitioner - Dharam Singh @ Dharmo took away the 7 years old boy, namely, Vinod, to his agricultural fields and after removing his clothes, he committed unnatural offence with him. After investigation, charge-sheet was filed against the accused/petitioner for the offence punishable under Section 377 IPC. Charge for the same was read over to him to which, the (3 of 5) [CRLR-593/2014] accused denied and claimed trial. After conducting trial, learned trial Court convicted the accused/petitioner and sentenced him in the manner aforesaid. Aggrieved by the judgment of the trial Court, the accused/petitioner preferred an appeal which also came to be rejected with a slight partial modification, as stated above under judgment dated 23.07.2013.
6. During the course of arguments, learned counsel for the accused/petitioner has restricted his prayer to the extent of quantum of sentence awarded to the accused/petitioner while not agitating the part of conviction for the offence under Section 377 IPC. So, the revision petition is being considered in the light of the submissions made by the learned counsel for the accused/petitioner.
7. Learned counsel for the accused/petitioner submits that the accused was first arrested on 02.02.2004 and in compliance of the order passed by this Court, he was released on 17.04.2004. During trial, he was again arrested on 27.04.2012 when he jumped over the bail and thereafter was released on 11.05.2012. He was again sent to custody on the date of the judgment of appeal, i.e., 23.07.2013 and since then, he is continuously in custody uptil now. Taking all these detention period, it appears that the accused has remained in custody for about four (04) years. Learned counsel for the accused/petitioner submits that at the time of incident, the accused was 24 years of age. He had been facing trial since 2004, i.e., for almost 13 years. Learned (4 of 5) [CRLR-593/2014] counsel submits that the trauma of facing trial and the criminal proceedings for more than 13 years is a sufficient punishment for the accused/petitioner. Moreover, he had been detained in the custody for almost 4 years. His prayer is that the accused/petitioner may kindly be released on the sentence already undergone by him. He has relied upon the judgment in the case of Sunil @ Babi Vs. State reported in 2005 (4) WLC (Raj.) 579 wherein, for the offence under Section 377 IPC, the sentence awarded to the accused was reduced to the period of imprisonment already undergone by him, which was 15 months only.
8. Learned Public Prosecutor has vehemently opposed the prayer stating that looking to the nature of the offence proved against the accused/petitioner, he should be dealt with strictly and should be ordered to serve out the complete period of sentence.
9. I have taken into consideration the arguments advanced on behalf of both the sides. The fact remains that the accused/petitioner has been facing the trauma of criminal proceedings since 2004. The accused/petitioner has now reached in the middle age. In the totality of the facts and circumstances, it appears proper and justified that the sentence awarded to the accused/petitioner be reduced to the period already undergone by him in custody, which is almost 4 years.
(5 of 5) [CRLR-593/2014]
10. Accordingly, the prayer made by the learned counsel for the accused/petitioner is allowed and this criminal revision petition is partly allowed. While maintaining the conviction of the accused/petitioner for the offence under Section 377 IPC, it is ordered that the sentence awarded to the accused/petitioner is reduced to the period of imprisonment already undergone by him. However, the amount of fine imposed by learned trial Court is enhanced from Rs. 5,000/- to Rs. 10,000/-. It is directed that the same may be given to the victim - Vinod as a compensation under Section 357 Cr.P.C.
11. This Revision Petition stands disposed off accordingly.
(DEEPAK MAHESHWARI), J.
/Mohan/46