HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 300/1993

1. Chattar Singh S/o Bharat Singh, by caste Rajput, R/o Rewlia,
P.S. Bhadesar, District Chittorgarh

2. Kan Singh S/o Jorawar Singh, by caste Rajput, R/o Dhanet,
P.S. Bhadesar, District Chittorgarh

—-Appellant
Versus
The State of Rajasthan

—-Respondent

For Appellant(s) : Mr. R.K. Charan
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Anees Bhurat, P.P.

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP MEHTA

Order

09/01/2020

The instant appeal under Section 374 (2) CrPC has

been preferred by the appellants Chattar Singh and Kan Singh for

assailing the judgment dated 18.08.1993 passed by the learned

Additional Sessions Judge, Nimbaheda in Sessions Case 9/1992,

whereby the appellants have been convicted and sentenced as

under :-

Name of the Offence for which Sentence awarded
appellant convicted
Chattar Singh Section 366 IPC Rigorous imprisonment of
three years with a fine of
Rs.500/- and in default of
payment of fine, further to
undergo one month’s
imprisonment.
Kan Singh Section 366 IPC Rigorous imprisonment of
three years with a fine of
Rs.500/- and in default of
payment of fine, further to
undergo one month’s
imprisonment.

(Downloaded on 14/01/2020 at 08:37:47 PM)
(2 of 4) [CRLA-300/1993]

Section 376 IPC Rigorous imprisonment of
seven years with a fine of
Rs.1000/- and in default of
payment of fine, further to
undergo three months’
imprisonment.

Mr. R.K. Charan, learned counsel representing the

appellants, urged that ex facie on going through the statement of

the prosecutrix Mst. ‘M’ (P.W.3) recorded on oath at the trial, it is

clear that she did not level any allegation whatsoever that the

appellant Kan Singh ever established any kind of physical relations

with her or sexually assaulted her. He, thus, urges that the

conviction of the appellant Kan Singh for the offence under Section

376 IPC is unsustainable in the eyes of law. He further submits

that the incident took place way back in the year 1988. Both the

appellants have remained in custody for some duration and as

such, even for the offence under Section 366 IPC, the appellants

deserve leniency on the aspect of sentence. He prayed that the

sentence awarded to the appellant may be reduced to the period

already undergone by them.

Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor vehemently and

fervently opposed the submissions advanced by the appellant’s

counsel. Nonetheless, he too is not in a position to dispute the

fact that the entire prosecution case is based totally on the

statement of the victim Mst. ‘M’.

On going through the sworn testimony of the victim, it

is clear that she stated that she was lured away by Chattar Singh

and his wife and thereafter, she was forced to marry Kan Singh.

However, in this entire statement, other than making a bald

aspersion that Kan Singh kept her as his wife, no allegation

whatsoever was levelled by the victim that she was subjected to

(Downloaded on 14/01/2020 at 08:37:47 PM)
(3 of 4) [CRLA-300/1993]

sexual intercourse by Kan Singh. In this view of the matter, ex

facie, the prosecution case, which is totally based on the evidence

of Mst. ‘M’ (P.W.3), lacks any substance regarding the charge

under Section 376 IPC and the conviction of the appellant Kan

Singh as recorded by the trial court for the said charge, thus,

cannot be sustained.

Regarding the charge under Section 366 IPC, it is clear

from a threadbare analysis of the victim’s (Mst. ‘M’ – P.W.3)

statement that Chattar Singh and his wife lured her and took her

away in a car. She was taken to Village Dhanet, where Chattar

Singh forcibly married her off to Kan Singh. Nothing was elicited

in the cross-examination of the victim Mst. ‘M’, which can discredit

the evidentiary worth of her allegation that she was lured by the

accused persons and was taken to Dhanet, where she was forced

to marry Kan Singh. Thus, the necessary ingredients of the

offence under Section 366 IPC as alleged by the prosecution are

duly made out against the appellants beyond all manner of doubt.

The finding recorded by the trial court against the appellants in

this regard is unimpeachable.

On going through the warrant of appellant Kan singh, it

is clear that he has remained in custody only for a period of 13

days. The appellant Chattar Singh, who was about 40 years of

age in the year 1993, has undergone imprisonment of about six

months. Kan Singh, who forcibly married the victim, is the

principal culprit of the case, thus, reducing his sentence to the

period already undergone by him, i.e. 13 days, in my opinion,

would not subserve the ends of justice.

In view of the discussion made hereinabove, while

affirming the conviction of the appellants as recorded by the trial

(Downloaded on 14/01/2020 at 08:37:47 PM)
(4 of 4) [CRLA-300/1993]

court for the charge under Section 366 IPC, the sentence awarded

to the appellant Chattar Singh is reduced to the period already

undergone by him and the sentence awarded to the appellant Kan

Singh is reduced to six months’ rigorous imprisonment. In

addition thereto, both the accused shall pay a fine of Rs.10,000/-.

In default of payment of fine, each of the appellant shall further

undergo one month’s simple imprisonment.

So far as the conviction of the appellant Kan Singh

under Section 376 IPC and the sentence awarded to him on that

count is concerned, to that extent, the impugned judgment dated

18.08.1993 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge,

Nimbaheda in Sessions Case 9/1992 is quashed and set aside.

The appeal is allowed in part in these terms.

(SANDEEP MEHTA),J

8-Pramod/-

(Downloaded on 14/01/2020 at 08:37:47 PM)

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)