Mahabir vs State of Haryana

Surinder Gupta, J.—The appellant faced trial for offence punishable u/s 376 read with Section 511 IPC and was convicted and sentenced to undergo RI for a period of 5 years and to pay fine of Rs. 50,000/- and further to undergo SI for 6 months in default of payment of fine.

As per the case of the prosecution, the complainant who was labourer by profession and is resident of village Lohani Tehsil and District Bhiwani, had gone to Rajasthan to visit his relative, along with his wife and two daughters, leaving behind his daughter (prosecutrix) aged about 8-9 years with the appellant. Even on earlier occasions he had left his children with the appellant, who was his neighbour.

On 27.02.2011 his relative Sachin informed on telephone that the appellant has indulged in indecent act with his daughter. He immediately returned home and made enquiries from the prosecutrix who told him that on 27.02.2011 at about 12-1 pm the appellant took her to mustard field where he made her to remove her trousers. The appellant also removed his trousers and tried to rape her but Anil son of Charanpur Gosai happened to reach the spot and on seeing him the appellant ran away.

The learned counsel for the appellant at the very outset has submitted that he do not challenge the conviction of the appellant and has confined his submissions only with regard to the quantum of sentence. He has requested for leniency in the sentence awarded to the appellant with the submission that the trial Court has awarded sentence on higher side. The appellant is not a previous convict and is sole bread winner of the family. As per the custody certificate, produced on file, he has undergone more than 3 years of imprisonment, which commensurate with the nature of the offence committed by him. He has requested for release of appellant by awarding him the sentence already undergone.

Learned State counsel argued that the offence committed by the appellant was quite serious. He had not only betrayed the faith of the complainant but also tried to commit rape with a minor girl making him ineligible to seek any leniency with regard to quantum of sentence. The appellant is about 48 years of age and there is nothing on file to show that he is a previous convict. Keeping in view all the facts and circumstances of the case and the submissions of learned counsel for the appellant, I am of the considered opinion that the interest of justice will be fully met if the sentence awarded to the appellant is modified and reduced from RI of imprisonment of 5 years to RI imprisonment for 4 years for offence punishable u/s 376 read with Section 511 IPC. The sentence of fine is however maintained.

Ordered accordingly.

Copy of this order be sent to learned Chief Judicial Magistrate/Duty Magistrate, Bhiwani for appropriate action.