Document Fragment View
Fragment Information
Showing contexts for: s.366 ipc in Prahlad Meena vs State Of Rajasthan on 31 January, 2013Matching Fragments
Challenge in these appeals is to the judgment dated July 13, 2009 of the learned Special Judge, Women Atrocities & Dowry Cases, Kota, whereby Mukesh Yogi, Prahlad Meena and Mohan Lal, the appellants were convicted and sentenced as under:-
Mukesh Yogi:
U/s.363 IPC:
Rigorous imprisonment for one year and fine of Rs.2000/-, in default to further suffer simple imprisonment for one month.
U/s.366 IPC:
Rigorous imprisonment for one year and fine of Rs.2000/-, in default to further suffer simple imprisonment for one month.
Mohan Lal:
U/s.368 IPC:
Rigorous imprisonment for one year and fine of Rs.2000/-, in default to further suffer simple imprisonment for one month.
Prahlad Meena:
U/s.363 IPC:
Rigorous imprisonment for three years and fine of Rs.2000/-, in default to further suffer simple imprisonment for one month.
U/s.366 IPC:
Rigorous imprisonment for three years and fine of Rs.2000/-, in default to further suffer simple imprisonment for one month.
U/s.376 IPC:
Rigorous imprisonment for seven years and fine of Rs.2000/-, in default to further suffer simple imprisonment for one month.
8. It is further submitted on behalf of the appellant that in her cross examination the prosecutrix has admitted that she had enmity with one Lad Kanwar, whose nephew was appellant Mukesh. Counsel for appellant Mukesh and Mohan Lal submitted that the trial court having held that Prahlad had an earlier existing relationship with the prosecutrix, there was no occasion whatsoever for the trial court to hold the appellant Mohan Lal guilty for the offence u/s.368 and the appellant Mukesh for the offences u/s. 363 and 366 IPC.
18. Now the issue of sentencing of Prahlad for conviction u/s.363, 366 and 376 IPC. In Ummaid Nath Vs. State of Rajasthan (1999(2) RCC 1383) wherein the age of the prosecutrix was found below 16 years at the time of occurrence but the prosecutrix was found to have gone with the accused willingly, the sentence of ten years rigorous imprisonment was reduced to five years rigorous imprisonment. Taking into consideration the overall facts of the case from which consensual nature of sex cannot be excluded and keeping in mind certain disquieting aspects in the evidence with regard to age of the prosecutrix, I would invoke the proviso to section 376 IPC and while confirming the conviction of appellant Prahlad for the offences detailed herein above, reduce the sentence to five years imprisonment for the offence under section 376 IPC, with a fine of Rs.500/-. The sentence for offence u/s.363 IPC will stand at three years but with a fine of Rs.500/- and u/s. 366 IPC three years and fine of Rs.250/-. In default payment of fine one month simple imprisonment. Sentences to run concurrently.