Skip to content


Gopal Vs. State of Rajasthan - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCriminal
CourtRajasthan High Court
Decided On
Case NumberS.B. Criminal Appeal No. 703 of 1671
Judge
Reported in1975(8)WLN994
AppellantGopal
RespondentState of Rajasthan
DispositionAppeal dismissed
Excerpt:
.....looked into the record and am satisfied that there is nothing on the basis of which it can be said that the trial court has committed an error of fact and law in convicting the accused-appellant under section 363 i. 2000/ to appear in the court of additional sessions judge whenever called upon to do so by the learned additional sessions judge tonk within a period of one year and during that period to keep the peace, and be of good behaviour......ridheyshyam, his maternal uncles who was head-master of the school at chhang. on october 20, 1967 gopal accused went to radhey shyam and requested him to send rameshwar with him to be taken to deoli to attend a feast. he further represented that rameshwar's father lad asked the former to fetch toe boy and had paid rs. 2/- bus-fare of the child. balieving this representation to be true radheyshyam asked rameshswar to accompany the accused appellant gopal. later on it was revealed that the accused appellant gapal had removed the boy from the guardianship of his maternal-uncle under a false pretext. the boy was taken to the village deoli where some beating was given to him by the accused and his relatives. the former was baten and asked to confess his guilt regarding the theft which is.....
Judgment:

M.L. Shrimal, J.

1. This appeal has been directed against the judgment dated July 28, 1971 of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Tonk whereby he convicted the accused appellant Gopal udder Section 363 I.P.C., and sentenced him to one months simple imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 100/-, in defult of the payment of which to undergo imprisonment for a further period of two weeks.

2. The prosecution story as disclosed at the trial is that on the date of the occurrence Rameshwar, a boy of about ten years age was living with Ridheyshyam, his maternal uncles who was Head-Master of the School at Chhang. On October 20, 1967 Gopal accused went to Radhey Shyam and requested him to send Rameshwar with him to be taken to Deoli to attend a feast. He further represented that Rameshwar's father lad asked the former to fetch toe boy and had paid Rs. 2/- bus-fare of the child. Balieving this representation to be true Radheyshyam asked Rameshswar to accompany the accused appellant Gopal. Later on it was revealed that the accused appellant Gapal had removed the boy from the guardianship of his maternal-uncle under a false pretext. The boy was taken to the village Deoli where some beating was given to him by the accused and his relatives. The former was baten and asked to confess his guilt regarding the theft which is alleged to have been committed at the house of Radheyshyam, and ultimately he was made to sign on a blank paper. A first information report of this occurrence was fiyeh at the Police Station Deoli on October 24, 1967, and the Police after usual investigation submitted a challan against the accused-appellant under Section 330 and 363 Indian Penal Code in the Court of Additional Munsif Magistrate No 2, The learned Magistrate after taking proceedings under Section 207 Cr. PC committed the accused, to the Court of Additional Session Judge, Tonk to stand his trial under Sections 330 and 363 I.P.C. The accused pleaded not guilty to the charge.

3. The prosecution examined eight witnesses in support of their case out of whom PW 1 Rameshwar is the kidnapped boy, P.W 2 Gulabchand, P W 3 Mallirhm and P.W. 4 Radheshyam are his father, grand-father and maternal uncle respectively P.W. 5 Laduram is the peon of the school, and P.W. 8 Dhanraj is the Investigating Officer of this case. The accused-appellant denied his complicity in the crime. He examined five witnesses in his defence.

4. The learned Judge found the defence unreliable and placing reliance on the statements of P.W. 1 Rameshwar PW. 2 Gulabchand, P.W. 4 Radheyshyam and P.W. 5 Laduram coavicted the accused appellant under Section 363 I.P.C. and sentenced him as mentioned above. However, he acquitted the accused appellant of the rest of the charge.

5. Being aggrieved of his conviction and sentence the accused appellant has filed this appeal.

6. It is not necessary for me to consider the prosecution evidence in detail and all the circumstances brought forth on the record by the prosecution to establish the guilt against the accused. Looking to the over whelming evidence on the record the earned Counsel appearing on behalf of the accused has not challenged the validity of the conviction However, I have looked into the record and am satisfied that there is nothing on the basis of which it can be said that the trial court has committed an error of fact and law in convicting the accused-appellant under Section 363 I.P.C.

7. The only point which has been urged before me on behalf of the appellant is regarding the sentence awarded by the trial court. The earned Counsel urged that since the occurence which led to the conviction of the appellant is of 1967. Nearly period of 8 years has elapsed between the date of the occurence and hearing of the appeal. The accused has taken up a regular business and is leading the life of a respectable citizen It will not be in the interest of justice to send him to suffer imprisonment for a short period of one I month after the lapse of eight years. He is likely to be placed the company of depraved characters of the society in which is unlikely to have a Dy. reformatory effect on him. It is true that the case of a period between the date of the commencement of the trial and hearing of an appeal is a factor which in the context of a particular case may in conjunction with other circumstances be considered as relevant factor for reduction of the sentence or extending the benefit of the provisions of the Probation of Offenders Act. Lasting of the criminal proceedings for a period of nearly eight years causes not only mental worry but it also means expenses apparent from the attendance in court. The prolonged uncertainty of the result of the case dots obstruct the continuity of normal life. The object of criminal law is more a inform the offender than to punish him. Taking a conspectus of the circumstances of the case, the nature of the offence and the short term of imprisonment awarded to the accused, I consider it proper to give him benefit of Section 4 of the Probation ' of Offenders Act On behalf of the respondent it was not controverted that this Court cannot make an order under this Act on the existing material on the record, without remitting the case to the trial court and without seeking any further information.

8. Accordingly, I affirm the conviction of the accused-appellant Gopal under Section 363 I.P.C., but set aside the sentence awarded by the trial in court and direct that he be released on entering into a bond with one surety in the sum of Rs. 2000/ to appear in the Court of Additional Sessions Judge whenever called upon to do so by the learned Additional Sessions Judge Tonk within a period of one year and during that period to keep the peace, and be of good behaviour. The Additional Sessions Judge, Tonk is directed to take necessary bond from the accused-appellant Gopa and the necessary surety bend from the sure to his satisfaction. The appellant's bail bond will ensure till these direction carried out after which they will be deemed to be cancelled. The learned Counsel prays for one month's time to submit the necessary bonds and he further undertakes to produce the accused before the trial court failing which the accused-appellant Gopal will undergo the sentence awarded by the trial court.

9. With the modification in the term of sentence the appeal stands dismissed.


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