Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 6 of 6 (0.68 seconds)Dinesh @ Buddha vs State Of Rajasthan on 28 February, 2006
20) Learned counsels for the convicted accused
placed reliance on the observations made by the Apex
Court in the case reported as AIR 2006 SC 1267 (Dinesh
@ Buddha v. State of Rajasthan) and the decision of the
Supreme Court in Criminal Appeal No.2393/2010
(Parkash Chand v. State of Himachal Pradesh) . Facts and
circumstances of each and every case are always
different. In the first case the Apex Court found that there
was no evidence to show that rape was committed on the
victim only because she was a member of scheduled caste
and so it was held that provisions of section 3(2)(v) of the
Act 1989 were not attracted. The facts of that case were
different. Relevant facts of the present case are already
quoted and this Court has no hesitation to observe that
only because the prosecutrix belongs to scheduled caste
and she had no support of any kind, the offence is
::: Uploaded on - 07/06/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 14/07/2019 05:40:43 :::
23 Appeals 504/13, 215,432 & 449/14
committed against her. Thus, the observations made in the
aforesaid two cases are of no help to the accused persons.
Parkash Chand vs The State Of Himachal Pradesh on 12 February, 2019
20) Learned counsels for the convicted accused
placed reliance on the observations made by the Apex
Court in the case reported as AIR 2006 SC 1267 (Dinesh
@ Buddha v. State of Rajasthan) and the decision of the
Supreme Court in Criminal Appeal No.2393/2010
(Parkash Chand v. State of Himachal Pradesh) . Facts and
circumstances of each and every case are always
different. In the first case the Apex Court found that there
was no evidence to show that rape was committed on the
victim only because she was a member of scheduled caste
and so it was held that provisions of section 3(2)(v) of the
Act 1989 were not attracted. The facts of that case were
different. Relevant facts of the present case are already
quoted and this Court has no hesitation to observe that
only because the prosecutrix belongs to scheduled caste
and she had no support of any kind, the offence is
::: Uploaded on - 07/06/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 14/07/2019 05:40:43 :::
23 Appeals 504/13, 215,432 & 449/14
committed against her. Thus, the observations made in the
aforesaid two cases are of no help to the accused persons.
State Of Rajasthan vs Vinod Kumar on 18 May, 2012
21) Learned Additional Public Prosecutor argued
for enhancement of sentence by submitting that in the
year 2012 the minimum punishment provided for offence
of gang rape was 10 years imprisonment but the sentence
of 7 years is given. No special reasons are given which
need to be given as provided by section 376 of IPC.
Though it is true that special reasons are not recorded for
giving sentence of imprisonment of 7 years, the
circumstance that no injury was caused to the prosecutrix
needs to be kept in mind. Further, she was taken to such a
place that persons going by that road could notice her
though on the next morning. These circumstances are
there which can be used in favour of the accused. Further
both the accused persons were married at the relevant
time and they were aged about 30 and 27 years and they
were also working as labour at the relevant time. These
things need to be kept in mind. Due to all these
circumstances this Court holds that interference is not
possible in the sentence which is less than 10 years given
::: Uploaded on - 07/06/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 14/07/2019 05:40:43 :::
24 Appeals 504/13, 215,432 & 449/14
by the trial court. On this point learned Additional Public
Prosecutor placed reliance on the observations made by
the Apex Court in the case reported as 2012 DGLS (SC)
283 (State of Rajasthan v. Vinod Kumar) . In view of the
facts of the present case this Court holds that the
observations made by the Apex Court are of no help to the
prosecution.
Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 313 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
1