SHRI RAM @ SAURABH Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Accused-appellant has filed this appeal under Section 374(2) Cr.P.C. to challenge impugned judgment dated 26 th of September, 2014 passed by Addl. Sessions Judge No.2, Hanumangarh (for short, 'learned trial Court'), whereby the appellant is convicted for offence under Sections 376 and 366A IPC and sentenced to eight years' rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs.5,000, in default of payment of fine to further undergo three months' rigorous imprisonment for offence under Section 376 IPC and five years' rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs.3,000, in default of payment of fine to further undergo two months' rigorous imprisonment for offence under Section 366-A IPC. Both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently.

(2.) Succinctly stated, the facts of the case are that on 28.09.2012, at 06.40 PM, Complainant Pratap Singh submitted a report at Mahila Police Station, Hanumangarh narrating victimization of his daughter by accused-appellant to the effect that his neighbour Geeta's brother Saurabh @ Sri Ram resides at Geeta's house and they had cordial relations with them. Last night when he got up at about 4.00 AM, he found his daughter not at home and was missing. She had taken away with her cash Rs.1,10,000/- and clothes from the home. Complainant suspected appellant-accused Saurabh @ Sri Ram for the entire episode. On the basis of report FIR No. 165/2012 for offence under Section 363 IPC was registered at Mahila Police Station Hanumangarh and after investigation police filed charge-sheet for offence under Sections 450 , 363 , 366 , 376 IPC against Saurabh @ Sri Ram and against one Amit Kumar under Section 363 , 366 , 376 , 120-B IPC before Judicial Magistrate First Class, Hanumangarh. The concerned Magistrate committed the case to the learned trial Court. The learned trial Court framed charge against the appellant for offences under Section 376 and 366A IPC and on denial, he was put to trial. During trial, prosecution, in order to prove charge against the accused-appellant, examined as many as 14 witnesses and exhibited documents. After conclusion of prosecution evidence, statement of accused was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and final arguments were heard by the learned trial Court.

(3.) The learned trial Court, after appreciation of evidence and material available on record, found that offence under Section 376 and 366A IPC are fully established against him and considering culpability of the accused-appellant for aforesaid offences, he was sentenced as aforesaid. Learned counsel for the accused-appellant, while giving up challenge to conviction has confined his arguments to the quantum of sentence awarded by the learned trial Court. Learned counsel submits that keeping in view the fact that the incident is old one and the offence was committed by the appellant in adolescence and therefore taking into account a mitigating circumstance that he has already undergone sentence for a period of five years three months, it would be appropriate to grant some indulgence to him in the matter of punishment. Learned counsel, therefore, submits that, in totality of circumstances, punishment awarded to the petitioner be altered by reducing the same to the extent he has already undergone. In support of his contentions, learned counsel has placed reliance on following legal precedents:-