SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Moti Lal vs State on 2 February, 2018

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/-

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.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

Copyright © 2018 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 to read Group Rules – CLICK HERE, If You agree then Please Register CLICK HERE and after registrationJOIN WELCOME GROUP HERE

We handle Women centric biased laws like False 498A, Domestic Violence(DV ACT), Divorce, Maintenance, Alimony, Child Custody, HMA 24, 125 CrPc, 307,312, 313,323 376, 377, 406, 420, 506, 509; and also TEP, RTI etc

Web Design BangladeshWeb Design BangladeshMymensingh