Ram Pal (In Jail) vs State of U.P.

G.S.N. Tripathi, J.—This is a Criminal Revision arising out of judgment and order dated 14.2.96 passed by the Sessions Judge, Shahjahanpur, in Ram Pal v. State of U.P. and Ors. Criminal Appeal No. 40/95 The learned Sessions Judge by virtue of his order, has confirmed the conviction of the accused under various Sections of the I.P.C. But he has modified the sentence as below:

The accused had been convicted and charged under Sections 452, 354 and 323, I.P.C. He was awarded 4 months R.I. on a charge u/s 452, I.P.C. and ordered to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000 on failure to pay the fine, 3 months'' Additional R.I. was awarded. On a charge u/s 354, I.P.C., he was sentenced to undergo one year''s R.I. and further ordered to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000. On failure to pay the fine, 3 months'' R.I. was awarded. On a charge u/s 323, I.P.C., he was awarded 6 months'' R.I.

In appeal, the learned Sessions Judge confirmed the order of conviction under all the heads. But he reduced the sentence u/s 452, I.P.C. to 3 months'' R.I. The sentence of fine was maintained as it was. u/s 354, I.P.C. the sentence was reduced to 5 months'' R.I. But the sentence of fine was maintained. On a charge u/s 323, I.P.C., the sentence was reduced to 3 months'' R.I.

This revision has been admitted only on the point of sentence.

Sri Krishna Murari lodged the report at the police station on 14.2.91 with the allegations that during the absence of his wife and himself and two other daughters, namely. Ram Guni and Reshma, Km. Khajana was alone in the house. At about 11 a.m., when Km. Ram Guni and Reshma had gone to the fields to take fodder, Km. Khajana aged about 14 years, was all alone. Accused Ram Pal was trying to drag Km. Khajana inside the house in order to commit rape upon her. The two other minor girls, namely, Ram Guni and Reshma incidentally reached at that very time. They saw the accused dragging Km. Khajana and also beating her with the Rinch. The complainant Krishna Murari and his wife returned in the evening from Mela. Then they were informed about the incident. He lodged the report at the police station on the same day. Km. Khajana was examined. One multiple abraded contusion 5 cm. x 4 cm. on the left cheek in all directions was found on the person of Km. Khajana. The other injury was multiple abraded contusion 7 cm. x 5 cm. over right side face right cheek, irregular in all directions, the third injury was traumatic swelling 2 cm. x 1 cm. on the part of the nose, left side.

The prosecution examined the complainant Krishna Murari, Km. Khajana (the victim), two other daughters, Km. Reshma and Km. Ram Guni and Dr. Jasbir Singh apart from the I.O. The accused denied his involvement in the crime. However, the learned Magistrate after appraising the entire evidence and circumstances on the record and taking into consideration the statement made u/s 313, Code of Criminal Procedure, found the accused guilty on the aforesaid charges and convicted and sentenced him as noted above.

The accused filed an appeal. But the learned Sessions Judge after re-appreciation of evidence, confirmed the conviction and modified the sentences as noted above.

Now the accused before me has simply prayed for some leniency in the sentence. It was urged by the learned Counsel for the accused that at the time of the occurrence, the accused was a young boy of 23 years and this was his first crime. Hence, a leniency should be shown.

I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record. I find very little force in this appeal. However, since the incident took place about 5 years earlier and the accused is in the state of locus penitentia and further this is a fact that this is the first crime committed by the accused, I wish to make a marginal allowance in the-sentence awarded by the learned Sessions Judge.

This fact cannot be denied that Km. Khajana, a 14 years old girl, was all alone in her house and the accused, who is a neighbour of the complainant, tried to misuse the opportunity. He was dragging her for a safer place to commit rape. So his intention was totally reprehensible. When the girl resisted, he caused injuries upon her person and most probably, bit her cheeks. He also caused injuries with a rinch. The statement of Dr. Jasbir Singh, P.W. 5 has gone totally unscathed in the cross-examination. Under these circumstances, the court cannot grant a long rope to the accused like this Appellant who had not cared to the fact that the girl was a helpless daughter of his own neighbour.

Moreover, the sentence should not be so lenient that the accused and other like him, may make a mockery of it. The public may lose confidence in the administration of justice if the sentences are totally flimsy in nature. Every sentence must have an aspect of deterrence, so that the public may not feel encouraged to commit crime. Law and order of the society in general, may not get disturbed.

Taking all these factors into consideration. I find that the sentence u/s 452, I.P.C. should remain as modified by the learned Sessions Judge.

u/s 354, I.P.C., the accused is sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000 only. He is not sentenced to undergo jail imprisonment.

On a charge u/s 323, I.P.C., the sentence of R.I. is modified. Instead of R.I., the accused shall pay a fine of Rs. 2,000. On failure to pay the fine, he shall undergo R.I. for a period of 3 months.

Out of the amount of fine so recovered from the accused, the prosecutrix Km. Khajana should be paid a sum of Rs. 2,000 by way of compensation. All the sentences shall run concurrently.

The accused is given two months'' time to pay the fine as ordered by the learned Sessions Judge, duly approved by this Court.

The accused is in jail. He shall be released after serving the sentence as duly modified by this Court.

The revision is accordingly allowed partly.