Bhanwar Lal vs State Of Rajasthan

The appellant herein has been convicted and sentenced as below by the impugned judgment dated 22.07.1993 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bali in Sessions Case No.25/92.

Offences

Imprisonment

Fine amount

Default Sentences

Under Section 457 IPC

Three Years' RI

Rs.500/-

Two Months' Additional R.I.

Under Section 354 IPC

Two Years' R.I.

Rs.500/-

Two Months' Additional R.I.

All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently.

Learned counsel Shri Suresh Kumbhat does not question the conviction of the appellant and rather submits that the incident took place way back in the year 1992. The appellant has remained in custody for about one week during the pendency of investigation and thus, rather than immediately sending him behind the bars, the appellant deserves to be extended benefit of probation. His alternative submission was that the sentence awarded to the appellant may be reduced to the period already undergone by him.

Learned Public Prosecutor on the other hand, vehemently and fervently opposed the submissions advanced by appellant's counsel and urged that the appellant has been held guilty of committing lurking house trespass in the house of the complainant and tried to outrage her modesty in the early hours of morning and thus, his conviction as recorded by the trial court does not warrant any interference nor is the accused entitled to any leniency on the aspect of sentence.

I have given my thoughtful consideration to the submissions advanced at bar and perused the impugned judgment as well as the record.

Ex-facie, upon a thorough re-appreciation of the evidence available on record, I am of the opinion that the conviction of the appellant as recorded by the trial court for the above offences is totally justified. In this regard, I have perused the evidence of the complainant Mst. Shakuntala, who was posted as A.N.M. at the village Kantbaliyan, who stated that she used to reside in the Meghwalo-ka-baas. On 24.11.1991, at 4:30 a.m. she was sleeping all alone in the Baramda of her house when the accused scaled the wall from the neighbour's house and entered into the house of complainant and gagged her mouth. The accused had covered his face by a cloth but when the victim grappled with him, the cover came off and the victim could identify the accused. She raised hue and cry and caught hold of the accused. The neighbours came around upon which the accused tried to run away on which, his head stuck the wall and he started bleeding. The accused then confessed his guilt and sought a pardon in the presence of the witnesses. No significant cross examination was conducted from the victim in this regard. The defence taken by the accused that the victim was embroiled in a matrimonial dispute with her husband and that he (accused) used to take side of her husband Lakhma Ram, and that is why the false case had been foisted against him is totally untenable and unconvincing. Therefore, I am of the firm view that conviction of the appellant as recorded by the trial court for the above offences does not warrant any interference.

However, coming to the aspect of sentences, this Court is conscious of the fact that the incident took place almost 29 years ago. As per the trial Court's judgment, the accused had remained in custody for about a week during the investigation and thus, sending the accused back behind the bars at this belated stage would be too harsh. Thus, the accused deserves leniency on the aspect of sentence of imprisonment while enhancing the fine awarded to him by the trial court.

Accordingly, the appeal deserves to be and is hereby allowed in part. While affirming the conviction of the accusedappellant as recorded by the trial for the offences under Sections 457 and 354 IPC, the substantive sentences awarded to him are reduced to the period already undergone i.e. about six days. The sentence of fine awarded to the accused by the trial court on both counts i.e. Sections 457 and 354 IPC is enhanced to a sum of Rs.5,000/- each. The accused is granted two months time from today to deposit the amount of fine, failing which, he shall undergo three months simple imprisonment as default sentence on each count. Fine upon being deposited shall be paid to the complainant by way of compensation.

The appeal is partly allowed in these terms. Record be returned to the trial court forthwith.