Ram Asra vs State of Haryana

Virender Singh, J.

Ram Asra son of Charan Dass stands convicted vide impugned judgment of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Hisar dated 23.11.1996 under Section 361 IPC punishable under Section 363 IPC and has been sentenced to undergo RI for four years and to pay a fine of Rs. 5000/ in default of payment of fine to further undergo RI for one year. He was also charged under Section 367 IPC but stands acquitted of the said charge. Aggrieved by the impugned judgment, he has preferred the present appeal.

It is worth mentioning here that Charan Dass father of Ram Asra appellant and one Chhinda (since deceased) were also booked in the present case but Charan Dass stands acquitted by the trial Court. State has not preferred any appeal against his acquittal.

Bhiro daughter of Tarsem Singh is the prosecutrix in this case. According to the allegation, she was adducted on 25.6.1993 from her village. The allegation further is that she was allegedly raped by the appellants at village Junagarh in the State of Rajasthan.

I need not enter into detailed discussion so far as the prosecution evidence is concerned, for the reasons that the learned Counsel for the appellant is not assailing the impugned judgment on merits. He, instead has confined his arguments on the point of quantum of sentence only and prays for taking a lenient view. Strengthening his arguments in this regard, the learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that there is a categorical finding by the learned trial Court that the prosecutrix was a consenting party to the performance of sexual intercourse with the appellant and for arriving at that conclusion, the learned trial Court has also taken into account the photographs Ex. P1 and P2 which shows that both were in intimate poses. The learned Counsel for the appellant has also drawn my attention to those photographs which formed part of the judicial file. He then contended that the conviction of the appellant is maintained only on the ground that Bhiro the prosecutrix was of the age of two months less than 18 years. In other words, according to the learned Counsel for the appellant, this is technical offence and as such the appellant deserves a sympathetic tilt so far as the quantum of sentence is concerned. Strengthening his arguments, the learned Counsel for the appellant further contended that the appellant was of the age 22 years on the alleged date of commission of offence by now has settled in his life after getting married. On the other hand Bhirothe prosecutrix is also well settled in her life. He then contents that even otherwise, the appellant remained in custody for about four months during trial and after conviction and the ends of justice would be adequately met in case the sentence is reduced to the period already undergone.

In support of his contentions, the learned Counsel relied upon the judgment of a Division Bench of this Court rendered in State of Haryana v. Islam, 1987(1) RCR 259. In this case, the prosecutrix has eloped with the accused with her own consent. She was less than 18 years of age. The accused was awarded 15 days sentence on the ground that the prosecutrix was a consenting party.

Mr. Dahiya refutes the arguments advanced by Mr. Sharma vehemently and contends that the appellant does not deserve any sympathy so far as quantum of sentence is concerned.

After hearing the rival contentions of both sides, I am of the view that the appellant does deserves a lenient view so far as quantum of sentence is concerned. The present case relates to the year 1993. The appellant by now has already suffered the rigor of protracted trial of long 10 years. I am of the view that the ends of justice would be adequately met if the substantive sentence awarded to the appellant is reduced to the period already undergone by him i.e. four months. The judgment rendered in Islam''s case (supra) squarely covers the case of the present appellant. It is ordered accordingly. However, the sentence of fine shall remain intact.

With the modification in the quantum of sentence as indicated above, the present appeal stands dismissed.

Let the intimation of the judgment be sent to the trial Court.