Skip to content


Bheraram Vs. the State of Rajasthan - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCriminal
CourtRajasthan High Court
Decided On
Case NumberS.B. Criminal Appeal No. 542 of 1976
Judge
Reported in1978WLN(UC)124
AppellantBheraram
RespondentThe State of Rajasthan
Excerpt:
.....if the appellant is sentenced to imprisonment already undergone.;i feel that the sentence of rigorous imprisonment for three years and a fine of rs. 1,000/- one thousand would meet the ends of justice.;appeal partly allowed - section 2(k), 2(1), 7 & 40 & juvenile justice (care and protection of children) rules, 2007, rule 12 & 98 & juvenile justice act, 1986, section 2(h): [altamas kabir & cyriac joseph, jj] determination as to juvenile - appellant was found to have completed the age of 16 years and 13 days on the date of alleged occurrence - appellant was arrested on 30.11.1998 when the 1986 act was in force and under clause (h) of section 2 a juvenile was described to mean a child who had not attained the age of sixteen years or a girl who had not attained the age of..........already undergone. the learned public prosecutor has submitted that the sentence of four years' rigorous imprisonment is not excessive looking to the facts and circumstances of the case i feel that the sentence of rigorous imprisonment for three years and a fine of rs. 1,000/- (one thousand) would meet the ends of justice.4. in the result the appeal is partly allowed, the convictions of the appellant for the offences under sections 447 and 376 ipc, are maintained. the sentence of rigorous imprisonment for two months for the offence under section 447, ipc, is maintained. the sentence for the offence under section 376, ipc, is reduced to that of rigorous imprisonment for three years instead of four years and the sentence of fine of rs. 1,000/- (one thousand) and in default of the.....
Judgment:

R.L. Gupta, J.

1. Appellant Bhera Ram was convicted by the Additional Sessions Judge No. 2, Jodhpur, for the offences under Sections 447 and 376, IPC, He was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two months for the offence under Section 447, IPC and to undergo rigorous imprisonment for four years and of Rs. 1,000/- in default of the payment of fine to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for six months for the offence under Section 376, IPC, vide his judgment dated April 27, 1976, in Sessions Case No. 22 of 1975.

2. The prosecution story, in brief, is that one Mst. Mangli went to her field on May 13, 1975, in order to watch the heap of grass and fodder. Finding her alone in the field the appellant Bhera Ram forcibly caught her and raped her. On hearing her cries Birdaram and Ladu Singh came to her rescue. On seeing these persons the accused ran away. The matter was reported to the police station, Shergarh by one Chotha Ram. After investigation the accused-appellant was challaned and after trial was convicted and sentenced, as aforesaid.

3. The learned Counsel for the appellant has argued this appeal before me only on the quantum of sentence. His contention is that looking to the facts and circumstances of the case the sentence is excessive. The appellant has already undergone a sentence for more than two years and it would meet the ends of justice if the appellant is sentenced to imprisonment already undergone. The learned Public Prosecutor has submitted that the sentence of four years' rigorous imprisonment is not excessive Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case I feel that the sentence of rigorous imprisonment for three years and a fine of Rs. 1,000/- (one thousand) would meet the ends of justice.

4. In the result the appeal is partly allowed, the convictions of the appellant for the offences under Sections 447 and 376 IPC, are maintained. The sentence of rigorous imprisonment for two months for the offence under Section 447, IPC, is maintained. The sentence for the offence under Section 376, IPC, is reduced to that of rigorous imprisonment for three years instead of four years and the sentence of fine of Rs. 1,000/- (one thousand) and in default of the payment of fine further rigorous imprisonment for six months is maintained. The appellant shall be entitled to the benefit of the provisions of Section 428, CrPC 1973 for set off of the period of his detention during the investigation, inquiry or trial against the period of sentence of imprisonment. The substantive sentences of imprisonment for the offences under Sections 447 and 376, IPC, shall run concurrently as ordered by Additional Sessions Judge No. 2, Jodhpur.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //