HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT
JAIPUR
S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 314 / 1989
Moti Lal
—-Appellant
Versus
State
—-Respondent
__
For Appellant(s) : Mr. PRS Rajawat
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Prakash Thakuriya PP
__
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA
Judgment
02/02/2018
The appellant Moti Lal was tried by the court of
Sessions Judge, Jhalawar. The said court in Sessions Trial No.
21/1989 vide impugned judgment dated 4.8.1989, acquitted
accused appellant of offence under Section 376 IPC. However, the
trial court convicted the appellant for the offences under Sections
354 IPC and sentenced him to undergo nine months RI.
The case of the prosecution, in brief, as stated in the
charge is that the appellant on 15.9.1988 at about 5:00 PM
committed rape with the prosecutrix (P.W.1- name withheld to
protect her identity) aged 60 years, on the ridge of the field in the
village.
The State of Rajasthan has not filed any appeal against
the acquittal of the appellant for offence under Section 376 IPC,
hence, the acquittal of the appellant for offence under Section 376
IPC has attained finality.
(2 of 3)
[CRLA-314/1989]
The trial Judge noted that the prosecutrix admitted in
the court that her relations with the accused were estranged and
they are involved in litigation. The trial Judge due to inimical
relations had not relied upon the testimony of the prosecutrix on
then ground that she admitted that when rape was being
committed, Nanda (P.W.2) and Gangaram (P.W.3) were attracted
at the spot.
It may be noted that Nanda (P.W.2) has turned hostile
to the prosecution. He in the court stated that he had not seen the
occurrence but when he reached at the spot, the prosecutrix told
him that the accused had made an attempt to outrage her
modesty. Gangaram (P.W.3) in the court stated that when he
reached at the spot, on the noise raised by the prosecutrix, he
saw accused running away from the spot.
The learned counsel for the appellant has submitted
that he shall not assail the conviction of the appellant in view of
the statement of the prosecutrix (P.W.1). Gangaram (P.W.3) an
independent witness, who stated that when he reached at the
spot, on the noise raised by the prosecutrix, accused was seen
running away from the spot. The learned counsel for the appellant
further submitted that the appellant is entitled to reduction in
sentence because of sufferance of protracted trial.
In the present case, the occurrence had taken place on
15.9.1988. The appellant is already in corridors of courts from the
last twenty-nine years. It is settled legal proposition that the
appeal is a continuation of the trial.
Considering that the appellant is facing trial from the
(3 of 3)
[CRLA-314/1989]
last about three decades, this court is of the view that indeed case
for reduction of sentence is made out.
The learned counsel for the appellant has submitted
that the appellant has already undergone five months during the
trial. It is contended that the appellant was taken into custody on
7.10.1988 and was released on bail on 6.9.1989. Thus, it is
contended that the appellant has already undergone actual
sentence of five months.
The above factual position is not controverted by the
learned Public Prosecutor.
Consequently the sentence of nine months awarded by
the trial court upon the appellant is reduced to five months RI.
With the above modification in sentence, the present
appeal stands disposed of.
(KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA)J.
Mak/-