RAHUL SARGARA Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners have preferred these revision petitions against common judgment dated 14th of January, 2016, passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Sojat, District Pali (for short, 'learned appellate Court'), whereby the learned appellate Court while dismissing the appeals filed by petitioners has affirmed the conviction and sentences awarded to them by Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sojat (for short, 'learned trial Court'). The learned trial Court convicted all the petitioners for offence under Sections 377 and 506 but petitioners Naresh alias Narendra and Dinesh were also indicted for offence under Section 120-B IPC and awarded following sentences: <FRM>JUDGEMENT_178_LAWS(RAJ)3_2018_1.html</FRM> Court further ordered that all the sentences shall run concurrently.

(2.) In brief, the facts of the case are that an FIR came to be lodged against present petitioners on a complaint made by complainant Imran on 5th of February 2014 alleging, inter-alia, therein that his maternal aunt's son Dilshad is dull-headed boy who was put in fear by petitioners and then was taken to some isolated place where all the three subjected him to unnatural sex. The complaint further revealed that petitioners made clippings of the saga and asked Dilshad to bring his sister's jewellery otherwise the clippings shall be shown to others which panicked the victim. Petitioner Rahul gave him a memory card and asked him to see it and also to bring Rs. 50,000 else he would upload the same on internet. The FIR was registered for offence under Section 377 IPC. Later on, after investigation charge-sheet against petitioners was filed for offence under Sections 377, 384, 506, 120-B IPC and Section 67A of the I.T. Act. The accused-petitioners denied the charges framed against them. During trial, prosecution exhibited 20 witnesses and 19 documents. Thereafter, statements of accused-petitioners were recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C., 1973 and in defence they too examined witnesses. On conclusion of trial, the learned trial Court acquitted petitioners for offence under Section 384 IPC and 67A of the IT Act but found petitioner Rahul guilty of the offence under Section 377 and Section 506 IPC and two others petitioners under Section, 377, 506 read with Section 120-B IPC and sentenced them as aforesaid. Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioners preferred separate appeals before learned appellate Court and the learned appellate Court, while concurring with the findings of learned trial Court, has affirmed the conviction and sentences awarded to them. It is in that background, the petitioners have approached this Court.

(3.) At the outset, learned counsel for the accused-petitioners has challenged the concurrent findings recorded by two Courts below to the extent the petitioners are held guilty for the offence under Sections 377, 506, 120-B IPC. However, learned counsel for the accused-petitioners submits that the petitioners have already suffered substantial part of the sentences awarded to them, therefore, taking into account the peculiar facts of the case, sentences awarded to them be reduced to the period already undergone. Learned counsel for the petitioners would contend that since occurrence of the incident more than four years have elapsed and during interregnum the petitioners have suffered a lot, as such, a lenient view in the matter is desirable. In support of his contentions, learned counsel for the petitioners has placed reliance on following judgments: