SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Dharam Singh@Dharmo vs State Of Rajasthan Through Pp on 28 April, 2017

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT
JAIPUR.
..
S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 593 / 2014.

Dharam Singh @ Dharmo S/o Shri Mohar Singh B/c Jatav, R/o

Supawas, Thana Kumher, Distt. Bharatpur (accused Petitioner is

Presently in Central Jail Sewar Bharatpur)

—-Petitioner
Versus
State of Rajasthan Through PP
—-Respondent
__
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Kartar Singh Faujdar.
Mr. Hari Kishan Sharma.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Rishiraj Singh, PP.
__
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK MAHESHWARI
Order
28/04/2017

BY THE COURT:

1. Though the matter has been listed in the “Admission”

category, learned counsel appearing for the accused/petitioner

prays that the matter may be finally heard and decided on the

revision petition as the record of the Courts below has already

been requisitioned and is available. The prayer made by the

learned counsel for the petitioner, to which, learned Public

Prosecutor has also not opposed, is granted.

(2 of 5)
[CRLR-593/2014]

2. This Criminal Revision Petition has been preferred on behalf

of the petitioner Dharam Singh @ Dharmo challenging the

judgment dated 05.06.2012 passed by learned Additional Chief

Judicial Magistrate, Kumher, District Bharatpur by which, the

accused/petitioner was convicted for the offence punishable under

Section 377 IPC and sentenced with rigorous imprisonment for

seven (07) years and a fine of Rs.5,000/-, for default of payment

of which, he was ordered to undergo rigorous imprisonment

additionally for two months.

3. On preferring appeal against the said order, the same was

also rejected by learned Appellate Court vide judgment dated

23.07.2013. However, the sentence for default in payment of fine

was converted from rigorous imprisonment into simple

imprisonment for a period of two months.

4. Both these judgments have been challenged by way of filing

this criminal revision petition.

5. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that on 17.01.2004,

the accused/petitioner – Dharam Singh @ Dharmo took away the

7 years old boy, namely, Vinod, to his agricultural fields and after

removing his clothes, he committed unnatural offence with him.

After investigation, charge-sheet was filed against the

accused/petitioner for the offence punishable under Section 377

IPC. Charge for the same was read over to him to which, the
(3 of 5)
[CRLR-593/2014]

accused denied and claimed trial. After conducting trial, learned

trial Court convicted the accused/petitioner and sentenced him in

the manner aforesaid. Aggrieved by the judgment of the trial

Court, the accused/petitioner preferred an appeal which also came

to be rejected with a slight partial modification, as stated above

under judgment dated 23.07.2013.

6. During the course of arguments, learned counsel for the

accused/petitioner has restricted his prayer to the extent of

quantum of sentence awarded to the accused/petitioner while not

agitating the part of conviction for the offence under Section 377

IPC. So, the revision petition is being considered in the light of the

submissions made by the learned counsel for the

accused/petitioner.

7. Learned counsel for the accused/petitioner submits that the

accused was first arrested on 02.02.2004 and in compliance of the

order passed by this Court, he was released on 17.04.2004.

During trial, he was again arrested on 27.04.2012 when he

jumped over the bail and thereafter was released on 11.05.2012.

He was again sent to custody on the date of the judgment of

appeal, i.e., 23.07.2013 and since then, he is continuously in

custody uptil now. Taking all these detention period, it appears

that the accused has remained in custody for about four (04)

years. Learned counsel for the accused/petitioner submits that at

the time of incident, the accused was 24 years of age. He had

been facing trial since 2004, i.e., for almost 13 years. Learned
(4 of 5)
[CRLR-593/2014]

counsel submits that the trauma of facing trial and the criminal

proceedings for more than 13 years is a sufficient punishment for

the accused/petitioner. Moreover, he had been detained in the

custody for almost 4 years. His prayer is that the

accused/petitioner may kindly be released on the sentence already

undergone by him. He has relied upon the judgment in the case

of Sunil @ Babi Vs. State reported in 2005 (4) WLC (Raj.)

579 wherein, for the offence under Section 377 IPC, the sentence

awarded to the accused was reduced to the period of

imprisonment already undergone by him, which was 15 months

only.

8. Learned Public Prosecutor has vehemently opposed the

prayer stating that looking to the nature of the offence proved

against the accused/petitioner, he should be dealt with strictly and

should be ordered to serve out the complete period of sentence.

9. I have taken into consideration the arguments advanced on

behalf of both the sides. The fact remains that the

accused/petitioner has been facing the trauma of criminal

proceedings since 2004. The accused/petitioner has now reached

in the middle age. In the totality of the facts and circumstances,

it appears proper and justified that the sentence awarded to the

accused/petitioner be reduced to the period already undergone by

him in custody, which is almost 4 years.

(5 of 5)
[CRLR-593/2014]

10. Accordingly, the prayer made by the learned counsel for the

accused/petitioner is allowed and this criminal revision petition is

partly allowed. While maintaining the conviction of the

accused/petitioner for the offence under Section 377 IPC, it is

ordered that the sentence awarded to the accused/petitioner is

reduced to the period of imprisonment already undergone by him.

However, the amount of fine imposed by learned trial Court is

enhanced from Rs. 5,000/- to Rs. 10,000/-. It is directed that the

same may be given to the victim – Vinod as a compensation under

Section 357 Cr.P.C.

11. This Revision Petition stands disposed off accordingly.

(DEEPAK MAHESHWARI), J.

/Mohan/46

Leave a Reply

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

Copyright © 2021 SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation
×

Free Legal Help, Just WhatsApp Away

MyNation HELP line

We are Not Lawyers, but No Lawyer will give you Advice like We do

Please read Group Rules – CLICK HERE, If You agree then Please Register CLICK HERE and after registration  JOIN WELCOME GROUP HERE

We handle Women Centric biased laws like False Sectioin 498A IPC, Domestic Violence(DV ACT), Divorce, Maintenance, Alimony, Child Custody, HMA 24, 125 CrPc, 307, 312, 313, 323, 354, 376, 377, 406, 420, 497, 506, 509; TEP, RTI and many more…

MyNation FoundationMyNation FoundationMyNation Foundation