Appeal against conviction for offenses under IPC and Immoral Traffic Act dismissed. Court confirmed the trial court's judgment noting appeal lacked merit.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
S.B. Criminal Appeal No.672/2008 (Smt. Ganga Bai Ramchandra Lama @ Bhawna @ Tamang Laxmidas Patil Versus State of Rajasthan)
:: Date of Judgment 9th January, 2014
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHESH CHANDRA SHARMA
Mr. Vinay Pal Yadav, counsel for the appellant Mr. Peeyush Kumar, PP for the State
This Cr. Appeal has been filed by the appellant against the judgment dated 8.5.2008 passed by Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No.2, Ajmer in Cr. Case No. 29/2007 (101/2007), whereby he convicted and sentenced the appellant as under:
For the offence under Section 368 IPC – To undergo 5 years' RI with fine of Rs. 1000/-; in default of payment of fine, to further undergo 3 months' SI
For the offence under Section 120B IPC : To undergo 5 years' RI with fine of Rs. 1000/-; in default of payment of fine, to further undergo 3 months' SI
For the offence under Section 5 of Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act : To undergo 5 years' RI with fine of Rs. 500/-; in default of payment of fine, to further undergo two months' imprisonment.
For the offence under Sections 6 and 7 of Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act : To undergo 7 years' RI with fine of Rs. 1000/-; in default of payment of fine, to further undergo 3 months' SI
Brief facts of the case are as under:
“On 18.1.2007, First Information Report was lodged by Smt. Nazmin at Police Station, Dargah, Ajmer for the offence under Sections 366, 376, 344, 368, 144 and 120B IPC. After completion of investigation, the police filed a challan. Thereafter the case was committed to the District and Sessions Judge, Ajmer, who transferred the matter to the Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No.2, Ajmer. The trial court framed charges against the accused appellant, who denied for the same and claimed for trial. The prosecution examined as many as 10 witnesses and got exhibited 22 documents. Thereafter the statement of accused appellant were recorded under Section 313 CrPC. After hearing both the sides, the learned trial court has convicted and sentenced the accused appellant vide judgment dated 8.5.2008, as indicated here-in-above.”
Against the said judgment dated 8.5.2008, this appeal has been preferred by the accused appellant.
Learned counsel for the appellant has contended that the accused appellant has completed the sentence, which has been awarded by the trial court. He has further contended that the trial court has not appreciated the evidence of the prosecution witnesses in proper manner. He has further contended that there are lacunae in this matter, hence the impugned judgment be set-
aside and accused appellant should be acquitted.
On the other hand, learned PP has opposed the same. He has contended that trial court has rightly convicted the accused appellant.
Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, I do not think it proper to interfere in the judgment dated 8.5.2008 passed by the court below and thus, the appeal filed by the appellant being bereft of any merit, deserves to be dismissed, which stands dismissed accordingly after confirming the judgment dated 8.5.2008 passed by the court below.
( Mahesh Chandra Sharma)J .
DK
All corrections made in the judgment / order have been incorporated in the judgment / order being E-mailed.
Dilip Khandelwal PA
5 provisions across 2 enactments
GANGA BAI RAMCHANDRA LAMA
STATE OF RAJASTHAN
MAHESH CHANDRA SHARMA
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
