Chhinderpal Singh and Another vs State of Rajasthan

Sunil Kumar Garg, J.—This appeal has been preferred by the accused appellants against the judgment and order dated 2.3.1989 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 2, Sri Ganganagar, in Sessions Case No. 10/88 where by the learned Additional Sessions Judge while acquitting the accused appellants for offence Under Sections 328 and 377 I.P.C. and another accused Anop Singh for offence Under Sections 328, 377/34 and 377/109 I.P.C. convicted the accused appellants for offence u/s 379 I.P.C. and sentenced them as under:

NAME OF CONVICTED SENTENCE AWARDED ACCUSED UNDER SECTION Chhinderpal Singh 379 IPC 1 Year''s R.I. and a fine of Rs.lOO/- in default to Further undergo 1 month''s R.I. Baldev Singh 379 IPC 1 Year''s R.I. and a fine of Rs.lOO/- in default to further undergo 1 month''s R.I.

By the same judgment, another accused Anop Singh was also convicted and sentenced for offence u/s 379 I.P.C, but he has not preferred any appeal before this Court.

It arises in the following circumstances:

i) On 5.1.1988 P.W.I Falaksher lodged a F.I.R. Ex.P/1 with the Police Station Sadar, Sri Ganganagar alleging inter alia that his nephew P.W.2 Asgar All had gone in the morning at about 10 a.m. along with his four she-goats and in the jungle 3 persons were there. At about 4 p.m., P.W.2 Asgar All came to his house in nervous condition. On enquiry by P.W.1 Falaksher, he told to his mother P.W.3 Rahmat that three young persons gave him Laddu to eat and after eating them, he had gone to state of unconsciousness and out of the three parsons two committed sexual assault on his person and they also took his she-goats. He further told that after hearing his cry, P.W. 10 Manukhan and P.W. 8 Budhram also came there and thereafter all the three persons were caught. P.W.1 Falaksher went to the spot where three persons were caught and they told their names as accused appellants and one Anop Singh another accused.

3) After usual investigation, police filed challan against the accused appellants and one Anop Singh for offence Under Sections 328, 379 and 377/341.P.C.in the court of Magistrate from where the case was committed to the court of Session and, thereafter, it was transferred to the Court of Additional Sessions Judge No. 2, Sri Ganganagar.

On 21.5.1988, the learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 2, Sri Ganganagar framed charges for offence Under Sections 328, 379 and 377 I.P.C. against the accused appellants and for offence Under Sections 328, 379 and 377/34 I.P.C. against one Anop Singh who pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

During trial the prosecution examined as many as 10 witnesses in support of its case. The accused in their statements u/s 313 Cr.P.C. denied to have committed any offence.

At the conclusion of the trial, the learned trial Judge through his judgment dated 2.3.1989 while acquitting the accused appellants for offence Under Sections 328 and 377 I.P.C. and one Anop Singh for offence Under Sections 328, 377/34 and 377/109 I.P.C, but convicted and sentenced the accused appellants and one Anop Singh as stated above.

Aggrieved from the said judgment, this appeal has been filed by the accused appellants.

In this appeal, the learned Counsel for the accused appellants has not assailed the findings of conviction recorded by the learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 2, Sri Ganganagar by his judgment dated 2.3.1989 for offence u/s 379 I.P.C, but it has been argued on behalf of the accused appellants that the accused may be sentenced to the period already undergone by them.

I have heard both and perused the record and impugned judgment.

Since in this case, findings of conviction recorded by the learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 2, Sri Ganganagar for offence Under Sections 379 I.P.C. have not been challenged, therefore, they are liable to be confirmed and the appeal of the accused appellants against their conviction is liable to be dismissed.

Looking to the fact that the accused appellants have remained in jail from 5.1.1988 to 12.7.1988 and for offence u/s 379 I.P.C. this period is sufficient to meet the ends of justice and looking to the fact that for major offences, the accused appellants have been acquitted by the learned trial Judge and they have been convicted for offence u/s 379 I.P.C. and for that offence period of sentence of near about 6 months is sufficient to meet the ends of justice especially looking to the fact that the incident took place on 5.1.1988 and more than 13 years have passed and this period is sufficient to exhaust anybody mentally, physically or economically and it will not be in the interest of justice to send the appellants to Jail for offence u/s 379 I.P.C. after 13 years, the sentence of period for which the accused appellants have remained in jail would be sufficient to meet the ends of justice and it is a fit case in which the accused appellants should be sentenced to the period already undergone by him.

In the result this appeal filed by the accused appellants Chhinder Pal Singh and Baldev Singh is partly allowed in the following manner :

The appeal of the accused appellants against their conviction for offence u/s 379 I.P.C. is dismissed after confirming the judgment dated 2.3.1989 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 2, Sri Ganganagar.

However, the order of sentence dated 2.3.1989 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 2, Sri Ganganagar is modified to the extent that the accused appellants are sentenced for the offence u/s 379 I.P.C., to the period already undergone by them.