High Court of Rajasthan
Case Law Search
KRISHAN LAL ALIAS VINOD @ RAJENDRA v STATE - CRLA Case No. 912 of 2002  RD-RJ 2233 (26 April 2007)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
KRISHAN LAL VERSUS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN @ VINOD @ RAJENDRA
S.B. Criminal Appeal No.912/2002 under
Section 374 Cr.P.C. against the
Judgment dated 27.8.2002 in Sessions
Case No.22/2001 passed by Sh. Kapil
Bhargva, RHJS, Additional Sessions Judge
No.1, Sri Gangangar.
DATE OF JUDGMENT : April 26th ,2007.
PRE S ENT
HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE CHATRA RAM JAT
Mr. R.S.Charan,counsel for the appellant.
Mr.JPS Choudhary, P.P.
BY THE COURT: 1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 27.8.2002 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge No.1,
Sri Gangangar, whereby he convicted and sentenced the accused appellant as under :- 363IPC 1 year rigorous imprisonment and fine of
Rs. 1000/- and in default of payment of fine one months simple imprisonment. 366IPC 7 years rigorous imprisonment and fine of
Rs.5000/- and in default of payment of fine 6 months simple imprisonment. 376IPC 10 years rigorous imprisonment and fine of
Rs.10,000/- and in default of payment of fine one years simple imprisonment.
All the sentences were ordered to be run concurrently. 2. The prosecution story is woven like this:-
On 4.5.2001 a complaint was lodged by Kirshan Lal s/o
Kashi Ram by caste Kumbhar resident of Sadhuwali stated that on 4.5.2001 one person aged 25 years age having thin body , and blackish in colour came to him who was taking name of
Harchand and said that he be given employment of labour for work of plantation. In the evening his neighbour Ved Prakash came and asked for labour and he said that he had not seen this person earlier but he had put trust in him and gave him food and therEafter he went to house of Ved Prakash ans slept there and instructed him to ready for tomorrow for work After awaking in the morning, he went to selling vegetables in market and on when on 5.5.2001 he was on selling vegetables the at about 11 A.M.. one Madan Lal and said that the person who came and residing in his house,has taken away his daughter Tarawati on cycle by persuading from his brother
Jawahar Lal's house and on searching both of them are not available .
When he went to Miyawali in search and asked then it revealed that he was not residing there and he has not taken his daughter Tarawanti in that village. He said that he and his wife can easily identified on seeing him. Name of daugther is Tarawanti and her height is about 4 ftand she was wearing green colour salwar and slippers were in her legs.She was studying in8th class. She was taken away against his will and there may be any un-happenings so he is reporting and prays for police action.
On the basis of above facts and circumstances,
F.I.R.No.244/2001 P.S.Jahawar Nagar, Sriganga Nagar, under
Sections 363-366-366-k,IPC was registered and investigation started.
After investigation,charge sheet was filed before Judicial
Magistrate No.2, Sri Ganganagar, who committed the case to the
Court of Sessions. Thereafter, the Additional Sessions Judge No.1
Sri Gangangar who framed charges for the offence under Sections 363,366 & 376 IPC and he denied charges and claimed for trial.
Prosecution has produced 14 witnesses viz. P.W. 1
Tarawanti P.W.2Krishan Lal , PW3 Madan Lal , P.W.4 Krishan Lal s/o Sohan Lal PW5 Ved Prakash , PW6 Amar Singh , PW7 Padam
Singh , PW 8 Bhanwai Shankar ,PW 9 Sohan Lal, PW10 Sher
Singh, PW11 Parmeshwari Devi , PW12 Purshottam Dass PW13
Rajo Devi and PW14 Dr.Indrapal Singh Punia and their statements have been record and Ex P1 to Ex P23 documents were produced by prosecution and in defence Ex D1 to Ex D4 produced by accused appellant in his defence.
Thereafter statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded in which accused appellant said that due to vengeance and money dispute, and by giving beating, he has been falsely implicated in this case. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned
Public Prosecutor and perused the record of the case . 4. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor supported the impugned finding and urged that the appellant was rightly convicted and sentenced. So the appeal must be dismissed. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that regarding appreciation of evidence, major contradictions, omissions and thereby testimony of prosecution witnesses, case may be argued but he is not pressing appeal on merit. Learned counsel for the appellant further states that he is not pressing appeal and submits that as per the finding of the learned trial court the prosecutrix is between 13-14 years. Thus being the below 16 years of age so as to finding of the conviction under Sections 363,366 and 376 IPC is not challenged, and finding of the learned trial court may be upheld. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant further states that the appellant is 26 years old young man and he is in custody from 30.6.01 i.e. approximately 6 years and admittedly the case is not covered under Section 376(2)(f) IPC as prosecutrix is above 12 years of age, and, thus, minimum sentence is 10 years is not applicable in this case and looking to the the age of the accused and period detention, the sentence awarded should be reduced to minimum level.
Learned Public Prosecutor states that providing 7. sentence is discretion of the Court but minimum sentence is 7 years and this is not a case where under the proviso to
Section376(1) IPC, court may impose a sentence of imprisonment for a term of less than 7 years as there are no adequate and special reasons in this case to reduce less than 7 years. 8. Taking into consideration the contentions raised by both the sides and the evidence produced by prosecution, this being a case of offence for rape, the statement of prosecutrix is very important, and conviction for rape can be founded on the testimony of the prosecutrix alone unless there are compelling reasons for seeking corroboration. The evidence of a prosecutrix is more reliable than that of an injured witness. The testimony of the victim of sexual assault is vital unless there are compelling reasons which necessitate looking for corroboration of her statement, the Courts should find no difficulty in acting on the testimony of a victim of sexual assault alone to convict an accused where her testimony inspires confidence and is found to be reliable. Corroboration as a condition for judicial reliance on the testimony of the prosecutrix is not a requirement of law but a guidance of prudence under given circumstances. The evidence of the prosecutrix is more reliable than that of an injured witness. Even minor contradictions or insignificant discrepancies in the statement of the prosecutrix should not be a ground for throwing out an otherwise reliable prosecution case. 9. As per evidence of the prosecution P.W.1
Tarawanti, P.W.11 Parmeshwari Devi, P.W.13 Rajo Devi nd
P.W.15 Inderpal Singh's statements are enough to prove the finding for the conviction against the appellant as held by the the learned trial Court and an appreciation of evidence and without any important contradiction of reversing evidence, the conviction of the appellant under Sections 363, 366 and 376
IPC is fully established on the basis of evidence and the finding for conviction by the trial Court is to be confirmed. 10. Having closely analysed the material on record and going through the submissions that conviction for offence under Sections 363, 366 and 376 IPC is not challenged and on perusal of the evidence of P.W.1 Tarawanti, P.W.11
Parmeshwari Devi, P.W.13 Rajo Devi and Medical Officer
P.W.15 Dr. Inderpal Singh, I am of the view that her testimony inspires confidence and trial court has rightly convicted the accused appellant under Sections 363, 366 and 376 IPC. 11. As to the consideration for the quantum of punishment by the trial Court on conviction, the trial Court convicted and sentenced the appellant for 10 years rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs.10,000/-under Section 376 IPC and in default of payment of fine to further under go for one years' rigorous imprisonment. In my opinion it is just and proper to reduce the sentence for offence under Section 376 IPC and other substantive sentences run concurrently. So while maintaining conviction recorded by the trial Court, I alter the sentence and reduce the sentence from 10 years to 7 years rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs.10,000/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo for one years rigorous imprisonment for the conviction under Section 376 IPC and remaining conviction and sentences under Sections 363,and 366 IPC is maintained. 12. In the result, the appeal of the appellant is partly allowed, and, while maintaining the conviction of accused appellant Krishan Lal alias Vinod alias Rajendra for offence under Section 376 IPC and sentence of 10 years rigorous imprisonment is reduced to 7 years rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs.10,000/- in default of payment of fine to further undergo for one years rigorous imprisonment. The rest of the impugned judgment of the conviction and order of sentence, including the order of the fine passed by the learned trial Court for offences under Section 363 & 366 IPC is maintained. The substantive sentences run concurrently as ordered by the trial court.
Accordingly, the appeal stands partly allowed in the 13. above terms and extent as indicated hereinabove. [CHATRA RAM JAT],J.
HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE CHATRA RAM JAT
Mr.R.S.Charan,counsel for the appellant.
Mr.JPS Choudhary,Public Prosecutor.
Arguments heard and judgment dictated in open
Court. Operative portion of the judgment reads as under:-
" In the result, the appeal of the appellant is partly allowed, and, while maintaining the conviction of accused appellant
Krishan Lal alias Vinod alias Rajendra for offence under
Section 376 IPC and sentence of 10 years rigorous imprisonment is reduced to 7 years rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs.10,000/- in default of payment of fine to further undergo for one years rigorous imprisonment. The rest of the impugned judgment of the conviction and order of sentence, including the order of the fine passed by the learned trial Court for offences under Section 363 & 366 IPC is maintained. The substantive sentences run concurrently as ordered by the trial court.
Accordingly, the appeal stands partly allowed in the above terms and extent as indicated hereinabove."
(See separate judgment) [CHATRA RAM JAT],J.
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.