VIKRAM SINGH Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The matter has come up for orders on fifth application for suspension of sentence on behalf of appellant Mayank Chobisa @ Pintu, but during the course of arguments, learned counsel for appellant did not press the application and submitted that she is not challenging the order of conviction of appellant passed by trial Court in view of overwhelming prosecution evidence including statement of prosecutrix in the case and her only prayer is to reduce the sentence of imprisonment of appellant awarded by the trial Court under Sec. 376 (2) (g) I.P.C. from ten years rigorous imprisonment, to a reasonable period, which this Court thinks fit and proper, as appellant has already undergone five years, ten months and twenty five days imprisonment, till now. Similarly, learned counsel for appellant Vikram Singh (Criminal Appeal No. 1127/2005) also submitted that he is also not challenging the order of conviction of appellant in view of statement of prosecutrix and his prayer is also to reduce the sentence of imprisonment of appellant passed by trial Court under Sec. 376 (2)(g) I.P.C. from ten years rigorous imprisonment to five years, eleven months and twenty nine days already undergone by him till now or to a reasonable period, which this Court thinks fit and proper.

(2.) Learned Public Prosecutor did not oppose the prayer of appellants for hearing of the appeals and he submitted that the sentence of imprisonments can be reduced for the reasons to be recorded.

(3.) At the request of learned counsel for the parties, the arguments were heard and appeals are being disposed. off finally. Both the appeals are directed against common order of trial Court and arise out of same incident and F.I.R., therefore, they are being disposed off by this common order.