Partly allowed

Ram Das and Ors. v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC8 Sept 2020CRLA/1767/1984

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed an appeal in part, modifying the sentence of elderly convicts Ram Das and Om Prakash. Relying on their advanced age and pre-trial detention, the Court ordered sentence remission to the period of incarceration, requiring fine deposit for release. Conviction was largely upheld.

What did the court decide?

Sentences of Ram Das and Om Prakash reduced to period undergone in jail; release contingent on deposit of trial court fine.

Ram Das and Ors. Vs State of U.P. — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Allahabad HC (2020)

¶1

Court No . - 34

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 1767 of 1984 Appellant :- Ram Das And Ors. Respondent :- State of U.P. Counsel for Appellant :- S.P. Tewari Counsel for Respondent :- A.G.A.

¶3

Hon'ble Mrs. Sunita Agarwal,J.

¶4

Heard Sri Sunil Kumar learned counsel for the appellant no.1, Ram Das and Sri S.K. Tripathi learned counsel for the appellant no.2, Om Prakash @ Munna and Sri Hari Pratap Gupta learned A.G.A for the State.

¶5

No one has put in appearance on behalf of appellant no.3 Ram Babu and as per the police report, he had left his village much earlier and his whereabouts are not known. For this reason, the counsels appearing for the appellants have been appointed as an Amicus Curiae to argue the appeal on behalf of appellant no.3, Ram Babu.

¶6

It may be noted that the learned counsel for the appellants states that as per his information the appellant no.3, Ram Babun is no more.

¶7

The death of appellant no.3, Ram Babu could not be verified by the C.J.M., Mainpuri. As per his report dated 23.7.2020, Ram Babu is not residing in the village and his whereabouts are not known. The C.J.M, Etawah, however, is directed further to verify the factum of death of Ram Babu who was ordinarily resident of District Etawah.

¶8

As far as the merit of appeal is concerned, the appellant no.1 Ram Das has been convicted under Section 363 I.P.C and sentenced for two years rigorous imprisonment and he has also been convicted under Section 366 I.P.C and sentenced for four years rigorous imprisonment. The accused Om Prakash @ Munna has been convicted and sentenced under Section 368 I.P.C for four years rigorous imprisonment. All the sentences are to run concurrently. With the passing of the judgment of conviction dated 8.6.1984 and during the course of trial, as per the submissions of learned counsel for the appellants both appellants Ram Das and Om Prakash had remained in jail for approximately a period of six months.

¶9

It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the appellants that Ram Das is aged about 70 years and Om Prakash is a man of 75 years old. Submission is that their complicity in the

¶10

offence under Sections 363, 366 and 368 I.P.C is not proved from the prosecution evidence, in as much as, no specific role had been assigned to them in the offence of kidnapping or abduction of the minor girl.

¶11

Submission is that as per the prosecution itself, the girl was removed from the custody of her parents by co-accused Munni Devi who went to the house of the prosecutrix and brought the girl to her house with a promise to marry her with a suitable man.

¶12

According to the prosecution story after leaving her house, the prosecutrix reached the house of the accused Munni Devi and she met Ram Babu, Ram Das there. The accused Ram Babu was introduced as a prospective groom to the prosecutrix by Munni Devi, whereas Ram Das was stated to be present in the house of Munni Devi at that time. Submission is that there is no evidence on record which could prove any act done on the part of accused Ram Das to remove the victim girl from the custody of her parents by giving any assurance or any kind of threat to her.

¶13

In the statement of the victim girl (P.W-3) recorded during trial, she had made allegations mainly against Ram Babu who took her to some other place on the pretext of marriage and committed rape on her during the period of her stay with him. The submission is that offence under Section 366 I.P.C of kidnapping and abduction against appellant no.1, Ram Das is not proved from the statement of any of the prosecution witnesses.

¶14

The allegations against accused Om Prakash is that he had kept the kidnapped girl/prosecutrix in his house on the instructions of accused Munni Devi for a period of three days till the victim girl was forced to leave the village with the appellant Ram Babu. It is, thus, argued that the victim girl in her statement before the court had only stated that she stayed in the house of Om Prakash for three days but did not say that her stay there was on account of any threat/perception or force exerted by appellant Om Prakash. It is, thus, argued that the elements of offence under Section 368 of wrongful concealment or confinement of the kidnapped or abducted girl/prosecutrix is not proved.

¶15

Be that as it may, looking to the evidence on record, having perused the statement of the prosecution witnesses, careful reading of the statement of the prosecutrix and discussion in the trial court judgment about the complicity of appellants Ram Das and Om Prakash, this Court finds that it cannot be said that

¶16

they were innocent or they did not participate in the crime which is committed by the main accused Ram Babu and Munni Devi.

¶17

Their conviction for the offences in the judgment and order impugned, therefore, cannot be said to suffer from any error of law. However, looking to the age of the appellant nos.1 and 2 namely, Ram Das and Om Prakash being more than 70 years and that they remained in jail for a period of more than six months during the course of trial and after their conviction, this Court is of the considered opinion that the sentence awarded to the appellant nos.1 and 2, Ram Das and Om Prakash is liable to be reduced to the period undergone i.e. the period for which they remained in jail. Both the appellants, however, be under obligation to deposit the fine imposed by the trial court which shall be duly disbursed to the victim/prosecutrix.

¶18

As far as the appellant no.3, Ram Babu, the main allegation of rape under Section 376 I.P.C is against him but he has not turned up to press his appeal and his whereabouts are not known. His death though reported but could not verified.

¶19

However, looking to the material on record, this Court does not find any reason to take any exception to the conviction and sentence awarded to accused-appellant no.1, Ram Das.

¶20

Accordingly, the judgment and order dated 8.6.1984 passed by the IIIrd Additional District & Sessions Judge, Mainpuri in Sessions Trial No.578 of 1982 (State vs. Ram Das and others connected with Sessions Trial no.323 of 1983 (State vs Om Prakash @ Munna) Case Crime No.110 of 1982, Police StationKishni, District-Mainpuri, convicting and sentencing the accused-appellant nos.1 and 2 namely Ram Das and Om Prakash @ Munna under Sections 363, 366 and 368 I.P.C. respectively is modified to the above extent.

¶21

For the above, the appeal is allowed in part.

¶22

The accused- appellant no.1, Ram Das has been lodged in jail pursuant to Non-bailable warrant issued by this Court vide order dated 6.7.2020. He shall be released from jail subject to the deposit of fine imposed by the trial court at the earliest. The appellant no.2, Om Prakash @ Munna is on bail. His bail bonds are cancelled and sureties are discharged. The whereabouts of appellant no.3, Rambabu cannot be found. The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mainpuri/Etawah shall take the necessary action in this regard in view of the above decision.

¶23

Certify this judgment to the court below for compliance.

¶24

Necessary steps shall be taken by the court below to notify this judgment to all concerned to ensure due compliance of the directions given above.

¶25

The compliance report be furnished to this Court through the Registrar General, High Court, Allahabad.

¶26

Order Date :- 8.9.2020/Harshita

Ram Das and Ors. v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ram Das and Ors. v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Navijan @ Sonu Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Smt.Nasreen Jahan Vs State of U.P. and Another

Vivek Taliwal and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another

Faizan Ali Vs State of U.P.

Anjan Kumar Singh Vs State of U.P.

Zeeshan Vs State of U.P.