Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
Eliyas Urf Sajan vs State Of Rajasthan Through Pp on 3 June, 2019
Author: Pankaj Bhandari
Bench: Pankaj Bhandari
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 1340/2011
Eliyas @ Sajan S/o Mehboob Khan, B/c Kayamkhani, R/o Village
Kirdoli, Police Station Sadar, Sikar District Sikar Raj. (At present
in District Jail Sikar).
----Appellant
Versus
The State of Rajasthan through P.P.
----Respondent
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Ripu Daman Singh Naruka For Respondent(s) : Mr. Prashant Sharma, P.P. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PANKAJ BHANDARI Judgment 03/06/2019
1. Special Bench has been constituted with a view to achieve the goal set up by the Judiciary for 'Speedy Justice' and Access to Justice to all, for disposal of the criminal appeals, in which convict is in jail for five or more years.
2. Appellant has preferred this Criminal Appeal aggrieved by Judgment dated 14.12.2011, by which appellant has been convicted for the offence under Sections 342, 363, 366 and 376 (2) (g) of IPC and has been sentenced as under:-
Under Section 342 IPC Six months rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs.
1,000/-, in case of default in
payment of fine, to further
undergo one month simple
(Downloaded on 26/06/2019 at 11:21:11 PM)
(2 of 4) [CRLA-1340/2011]
imprisonment.
Under Section 363 IPC Three years rigorous
imprisonment with fine of Rs.
1,000/-, in case of default in
payment of fine, to further
undergo six months simple
imprisonment.
Under Section 366 IPC Five years rigorous
imprisonment with fine of Rs.
2,000/-, in case of default in
payment of fine, to further
undergo six months simple
imprisonment.
Under Section 376 (2) (g) Ten years rigorous
IPC imprisonment with fine of Rs.
2,000/-, in case of default in
payment of fine, to further
undergo six months simple
imprisonment.
3. The brief facts of the case are that on 12.10.2010, an FIR was lodged at Police Station Sadar, Sikar regarding three persons abducting prosecutrix. Name of three accused was mentioned in the FIR. Bilal was a juvenile and Police after investigation submitted charge-sheet before the Juvenile Board. Abbas remained absconding and was later on arrested. In the trial of Abbas, prosecutrix turned hostile. Abbas was acquitted vide (Downloaded on 26/06/2019 at 11:21:11 PM) (3 of 4) [CRLA-1340/2011] judgment dated 18.08.2012 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track), Sikar in Session Case No. 5/2012.
4. It is contended by counsel for the appellant that out of three accused, one has been acquitted as prosecutrix has turned hostile.
Other accused was juvenile in conflict with law, who has already been released. Appellant has remained in custody for a period of about eight years and one month, which does not include period of remission.
5. Counsel for the appellant in view of acquittal of one of the co-accused and release of the other co-accused, do not press the appeal on merits. The only prayer is that sentence be reduced to the period already undergone.
6. Counsel for the appellant has placed reliance on Shankar Lal & Anr. vs. State of Rajasthan 2010 (2) Cr.L.R. (Raj.) 1452 and Ravindra vs. State of Madhya Pradesh 2015 (1) WLC (SC) Cri. 534.
7. Learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the appeal.
8. I have considered the contentions and have perused the statement of prosecutrix.
9. Prosecutrix in her statement recorded before the Trial Court levelled allegations with regard to kidnapping and rape against the present appellant as well as Abbas and Bilal. However, subsequently prosecutrix turned hostile qua Abbas and Abbas was acquitted.
10. Proviso to Sub-section (2) of Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code empowers the Court to impose a sentence of imprisonment for a term of less than ten years for adequate and special reasons to be mentioned in the judgment.
(Downloaded on 26/06/2019 at 11:21:11 PM)
(4 of 4) [CRLA-1340/2011]
11. Prosecutrix has turned hostile qua accused Abbas, who has been acquitted. Appellant has already remained in custody for a period of eight years and one month, which does not include the period of remission. There was a delay of 36 hours in lodging of the FIR. Counsel for the appellant is not challenging the judgment on merits, hence I deem it proper to partly allow the appeal.
12. Accordingly, the appeal is partly allowed and sentence is reduced to the period already undergone.
13. However, appellant would be required to deposit the fine or suffer imprisonment in lieu of non-deposition of fine.
14. On deposition of fine, appellant be released forthwith, if not required in any other case or for any other purpose.
(PANKAJ BHANDARI),J Simple Kumawat /02 (Downloaded on 26/06/2019 at 11:21:11 PM) Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)