Partly allowed

Ram Singh v. State

Rajasthan HC8 May 2013CRLA/161/2007

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In Sessions Case No. 22/2006, the High Court of Rajasthan, Jaipur Bench, considered an appeal against conviction and sentencing. The appellant sought reduction in default imprisonment terms due to fine payment. The court maintained the conviction but reduced the default sentences to 20 days and 10 days respectively.

What did the court decide?

Conviction maintained; default sentence for fine under Section 376 IPC reduced to 20 days; default sentence for fine under Section 342 IPC reduced to 10 days.

Ram Singh Vs State — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Rajasthan HC (2013)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR

¶3

JUDGMENT

¶4

SB Criminal Appeal No. 161/2007 (Ram Singh Versus State of Rajasthan)

¶5

8^th May, 2013

¶6

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHESH CHANDRA SHARMA

¶7

Mr. Rohan Jain, for the accused appellant Mr. Pradeep Shrimal) P.P. for the State Mr. Piyush Kumar )

¶8

This appeal has been filed against the judgment dated 26.6.2006 passed by Additional sessions Judge (Fast Track), Hindaun City, District Karauli in Sessions Case No. 22/2006 (13/2006), whereby the appellant has been convicted under Section 376 (I) IPC and sentenced to undergo 7 years R.I with fine of Rs. 2000/-; in default of payment of fine, to further undergo six months' imprisonment and he has also been convicted under Section 342 IPC and sentenced to undergo 1 year's R.I. with fine of Rs. 500/-; in default of payment of fine, to further undergo 2 months' imprisonment and both the sentences have been directed to run concurrently.

¶9

The facts case, in nut-shell, are as under:

¶10

“Complainant Manju Devi filed a complaint against Ram Singh, Babu Singh

¶11

¶12

and Bhagwan singh. The said complaint was sent by the Magistrate to the police for investigation under Section 156(3) CrPC. Accordingly, FIR No. 13/2006 was registered for the offence under Section 342 and 376 IPC. After investigation, the police filed the challan against the accused appellant for the offence under Section 342 and 376 IPC. Thereafter case was committed and charge was framed against the accused appellant for the offence under Section 342 and 376 IPC. Subsequently the prosecution witnesses were produced and statement of the accused appellant under Section 313 CrPC was recorded. After hearing the arguments of both the sides, the learned trial court convicted the accused appellant for the offence under Section 376 (I) and 342 IPC, as indicated here-in-above.

¶13

Against the said judgment, this appeal has been preferred by the accused appellant through Jail and Mr. Rohan Jain, Advocate was appointed as Amicus Curiae in this case.

¶14

At the very outset, learned counsel for the appellant has contended that he is not challenging the conviction part of the judgment of the trial court. The

¶15

¶16

sentence of the accused appellant is near about 7 years and according to him, he has already served the sentence, as awarded by the trial court. The only request, which has been made by Mr. Rohan Jain, Advocate is that the sentence of 6 months' and 2 months', which are directed to be further undergone by the appellant in default of payment of fine of Rs. 2000/- imposed for the offence under Section 376 (I) IPC; and in default of payment of fine of Rs. 500/imposed for the offence under Section 342 IPC respectively, should be reduced.

¶17

Learned PP has opposed the same.

¶18

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and carefully perused the relevant material on record.

¶19

Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, the request made by Mr. Rohan Jain, Advocate seems to be genuine at this stage. The ends of justice would meet if the sentence of the appellant in default of payment of fine is reduced to one month in toto. Hence, this appeal is disposed of with the following directions:

¶20

i) The appeal filed by the appellant is partly allowed; ii) The conviction of the appellant is maintained;

¶21

iii) In default of payment of fine of Rs. 2000/- for the

¶22

¶23

offence under Section 376 (I) IPC, the appellant shall undergo for 20 days instead of 6 months.

¶24

iv) In default of payment of fine of Rs. 500/- for the offence under Section 342 IPC, the appellant shall undergo for 10 days instead of 2 months.

¶25

The impugned judgment stands modified as indicated here-in-above.

¶26

(Mahesh Chandra Sharma) J.

¶27

¶28

All corrections made in the judgment / order have been incorporated in the judgment / order being E-mailed.

¶29

Dilip Khandelwal PA

Ram Singh v. State

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ram Singh v. State

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

Parvez Khan Vs State

Mubeen and Anr. Vs State

Jameel Ahm,Ed Vs State

Jivan Singh Vs State

Gyani @ Sharif Khan Vs State

Ashok Kumar Vs State