RAM NIWAS Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal has been filed by the appellant against the judgment dated 17.2.1993 passed by Sessions Judge, Sawai Madhopur in Sessions Case No. 109/1991, whereby he while acquitting the accused for the offence under Section 376/511 IPC, convicted the accused appellant for the offence under Section 354 IPC and sentenced him to undergo 6 months' SI. Brief facts of the case are that on an FIR was lodged by Smt. Ram Bai at Police Station, Rawajna Dungar, District Sawai Madhopur against the petitioner for the offence u/Secs. 354, 376/511 IPC. Thereafter the investigation was commenced and after investigation the police filed a charge-sheet against the accused person before the Court of CJM, Sawai Madhopur. Thereafter the case was transferred to the Court of Sessions for trial. The trial Court framed charges against the accused person, who denied from the same and claimed trial. The prosecution produced witnesses and exhibited some documents. Thereafter the statements of accused person were recorded u/Sec. 313 Cr.P.C. After hearing both the sides, the learned trial Court vide judgment dated 17.2.1993 acquitted the accused person for the offence under Sec. 376/511 IPC, but convicted and sentenced the accused appellant as indicated above. Against the aforesaid judgment, this appeal has been preferred.

(2.) Learned counsel for the appellant has contended that the trial Court has not appreciated the evidence submitted by the appellant and wrongly convicted the appellant for the offence under Section 354 IPC. He has further contended that FIR was delayed by 24 hours, which has not been explained by the prosecution. He has further contended that there is a contradiction in the statement of the prosecution witnesses and the prosecution witnesses have failed to explain the case, as such the impugned judgment be quashed and set-aside and the accused appellant should be acquitted.

(3.) In the alternate, he has requested that he is not challenging the conviction part of the judgment of the court below, but he is only requesting to this Court that alleged incident is said to have taken place on 29.5.1991 i.e. about 24 years ago from today; he is facing the trial since the last 24 years; the appellant is more than 85 years of age and suffering from oldness diseases; he has married and having the grand sons and grand daughters of marriageable age; he is not a habitual offender; it is the first offence of his life; and he is not previously convicted person; when this offence was committed, it was bailable, hence he should be released on probation and benefit of Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders' Act should also be given to him.