Dinesh vs State on 7 March, 2018

S.B. Criminal Revision No. 177 / 2016
Rahul S/o Shri Ganpat Lal, by caste Sargara, resident of Near
Khardion ki Masjid, Sojat City, District Pali
(At present lodged in Central Jail, Jodhpur)

State of Rajasthan

Connected With
S.B. Criminal Revision No. 111 / 2016
Naresh @ Narendra S/o Shri Omprakash, by caste Suthar, resident
of Paoti ka Vas, Sojat, District Pali
(At present lodged in Central Jail, Jodhpur)


State of Rajasthan


S.B. Criminal Revision No. 176 / 2016
Dinesh S/o Madan Lal, by caste Vaishnav, resident of Singhadio ki
Pole, Sojat City, Tehsil Sojat, District Pali
(At present lodged in Central Jail, Jodhpur)

State of Rajasthan

For petitioners(s) : Mr. Suresh Kumbhat and Mr. N.A. Rajpurohit
For Respondent(s) : Mr. O.P. Rathi, Public Prosecutor.

The petitioners have preferred these revision petitions

against common judgment dated 14 th of January, 2016, passed by

Additional Sessions Judge, Sojat, District Pali (for short, ‘learned
(2 of 6)
[ CRLR-177/2016]

appellate Court’), whereby the learned appellate Court while

dismissing the appeals filed by petitioners has affirmed the

conviction and sentences awarded to them by Addl. Chief Judicial

Magistrate, Sojat (for short, ‘learned trial Court’). The learned

trial Court convicted all the petitioners for offence under Sections

377 506 but petitioners Naresh alias Narendra and Dinesh were

also indicted for offence under Section 120-B IPC and awarded

following sentences:

Offence U/s Sentence Fine In default of

377 IPC 5 years’ S.I. Rs.2,000 3 months’ S.I.

506 IPC 1 year S.I. Rs.500 1 month S.I.

120-B IPC 2 years’ S.I. Rs.500 1 month S.I.

Court further ordered that all the sentences shall run


In brief, the facts of the case are that an FIR came to be

lodged against present petitioners on a complaint made by

complainant Imran on 5th of February 2014 alleging, inter-alia,

therein that his maternal aunt’s son Dilshad is dull-headed boy

who was put in fear by petitioners and then was taken to some

isolated place where all the three subjected him to unnatural sex.

The complaint further revealed that petitioners made clippings of

the saga and asked Dilshad to bring his sister’s jewellery

otherwise the clippings shall be shown to others which panicked

the victim. Petitioner Rahul gave him a memory card and asked

him to see it and also to bring Rs.50,000 else he would upload the
(3 of 6)
[ CRLR-177/2016]

same on internet. The FIR was registered for offence under

Section 377 IPC. Later on, after investigation charge-sheet

against petitioners was filed for offence under Sections 377, 384,

506, 120-B IPC and Section 67A of the I.T. Act. The accused-

petitioners denied the charges framed against them. During trial,

prosecution exhibited 20 witnesses and 19 documents.

Thereafter, statements of accused-petitioners were recorded under

Section 313 Cr.P.C. and in defence they too examined witnesses.

On conclusion of trial, the learned trial Court acquitted petitioners

for offence under Section 384 IPC and 67A of the IT Act but found

petitioner Rahul guilty of the offence under Section 377 and

Section 506 IPC and two others petitioners under Section, 377,

506 read with Section 120-B IPC and sentenced them as

aforesaid. Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioners preferred

separate appeals before learned appellate Court and the learned

appellate Court, while concurring with the findings of learned trial

Court, has affirmed the conviction and sentences awarded to

them. It is in that background, the petitioners have approached

this Court.

At the outset, learned counsel for the accused-petitioners

has not challenged the concurrent findings recorded by two Courts

below to the extent the petitioners are held guilty for the offence

under Sections 377, 506, 120-B IPC. However, learned counsel

for the accused-petitioners submits that the petitioners have

already suffered substantial part of the sentences awarded to
(4 of 6)
[ CRLR-177/2016]

them, therefore, taking into account the peculiar facts of the case,

sentences awarded to them be reduced to the period already

undergone. Learned counsel for the petitioners would contend

that since occurrence of the incident more than four years have

elapsed and during interregnum the petitioners have suffered a

lot, as such, a lenient view in the matter is desirable. In support

of his contentions, learned counsel for the petitioners has placed

reliance on following judgments:

(1) Fazal Rab Choudhary Vs. State of Bihar [(1982)
3 SCC 9],
(2) Chitranjan Dass Vs. State of U.P. [(1974) 4 SCC
454], and
(3) Neel Kumar @ Neelu Vs. State of Himachal
Pradesh [2013(1) Crimes 99 (H.P.).

Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor has vehemently

opposed the prayer of petitioners. Learned Public Prosecutor

would contend that there is reliable, clinching and trustworthy

evidence on record to prove that the accused have committed the

offence, and therefore, the prosecution has proved the charge

levelled against them beyond reasonable doubt as such no mercy

can be shown towards them even by reducing the sentence.

Learned Public Prosecutor has argued that both the Courts below

have recorded finding of guilt against the accused-petitioners, and

therefore, it is not desirable to reduce the sentence awarded to

the accused-petitioners, therefore, the revision petitions are liable

to be dismissed.

(5 of 6)
[ CRLR-177/2016]

I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the

impugned judgment of learned appellate Court as well as learned

trial Court and thoroughly scanned record of the case.

Indisputably, the learned trial Court, on the material

available on record, has recorded a definite finding of guilt against

the petitioners and the said conclusion of the learned trial Court is

affirmed by learned appellate Court on re-appreciation of

evidence. Therefore, I am not persuaded to interfere with the

finding of fact recorded by both the courts below. Otherwise also,

the learned counsel for petitioners has conceded on the finding of

guilt recorded by both the Courts below. However, taking into

account the concession made by learned counsel for the

petitioners and a significant fact that out of the maximum

sentence of five years awarded to the accused-petitioners, Rahul

has already undergone imprisonment for 4 years and 27 days, and

both Naresh and Dinesh for 3 years 10 months and one day, which

is evident from the communication of Superintendent, Central Jail,

Jodhpur dated 07.03.2018 addressed to the Government

Advocate, I feel persuaded to consider the prayer of the

petitioners in the backdrop of their proven delinquency. There

remains no quarrel that offence under Section 377 IPC is

punishable with very heavy punishments including the punishment

for imprisonment for life but then no minimum sentence is

prescribed. Likewise, offence under Section 506 IPC is also

punishable with maximum sentence of two years or with fine only.

(6 of 6)
[ CRLR-177/2016]

Therefore, in totality, by relying on the legal precedents, cited by

the learned counsel for the petitioners, in my opinion, sentence

awarded to the petitioners can be reduced to the extent they have

already undergone to meet the ends of justice. It is made clear

that there is no reprieve to the petitioners so far as punishment of

fine is concerned and therefore the petitioners shall deposit the

fine before the learned trial Court within four weeks. The learned

trial Court upon receipt of the aforesaid amount of fine from the

petitioners shall pay the same to the victim through his mother as

compensation under Section 357 Cr.P.C. forthwith.

In view of above discussion, revision petitions are allowed in

part and while upholding the conviction of the petitioners, as

recorded by learned trial Court and affirmed by appellate Court,

the sentences awarded to them is reduced to the period already

undergone by them while maintaining the fine. The petitioners,

who are under incarceration, be set at liberty upon their paying/

depositing the fine before learned trial Court, if not required in any

other case.


Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *