HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT
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)
State of Rajasthan Through PP
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Kartar Singh Faujdar.
Mr. Hari Kishan Sharma.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Rishiraj Singh, PP.
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK MAHESHWARI
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)
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)
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
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)
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
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)
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.