Allowed

Suresh v. State of Rajasthan through Pp

Rajasthan HC11 Dec 2017CRLA/152/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Rajasthan reduced the appellant's sentence and ordered his immediate release. The court held that despite the offence, the existence of a child and the continuance of matrimonial life constituted special circumstances warranting mitigation.

What did the court decide?

The appellant is required to be released from jail forthwith. The sentence is reduced to the period already undergone.

Suresh Vs State of Rajasthan through Pp — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Rajasthan HC (2017)

¶1

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶3

S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 152 / 2014

Suresh

Versus

State Of Rajasthan Through Pp

¶8

fl&&F 'f HONL!BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWatIA

¶9

'' -,Fg q$ 4% ,,\4 , 2p. ,* kssedkhe b&g~f following order:d "The present appe.9; the impugned 3 judgment dated 6 by the court of Sessions Judge, Jh pellant was held guilty of offences un 366 and 376 IPC. Having convicted F& resaid offences, the trial court N&c of even date,

¶10

d to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/-, in to undergo additional one

¶11

U/s. 366 IPC- to undergo five years RI and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default of payment of fine to undergo additional one month SI.

¶12

U/s. 376 IPC- to undergo ten years RI and to pay a fine of Rs.l0,000/-, in default of payment of fine to undergo - additional two months SI.

¶13

The learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the prosecutrix (name withheld to protect

¶14

her identity) appeared in the court as P.W.7 and she had stated that she herself had eloped with the accused. In cross-examination she admitted that the accused had not committed sexual intercourse against her consent forcibly, rather she stated that the accused had performed sexual intercourse with her consent. She further stated that in school record, her age has been recorded as 15.6.1988 but she is more than 18 years of age.

¶15

The trial Judge- relied upon the school and came to

¶16

sent was meaningless.

¶17

nt has submitted th in the house of the acuse&~~as ..is wife and from the loins $" "'.;.$ I of accused she hadkmjy.~ '&%g aschild. The learned ,&& counsel for the $~pl life of both a% qQ continuous detentie child of the accu brought up in a 7 re. Therefore, the learned counsel for t contended that it is good case wherein minimum prescribed !&aunt unamended a-i provisions, whid 4 the time of commission of 3 ontended that appellant as on to years and four months and twenty-&pdaqq

¶18

_ ij . .. . . i.:, .

¶19

In view of the submissions made above, let counsel produce the prosecutrix - wife of the appellant before Dy. Registrar (Judicial) along with respectable of locality to vouchsafe factwm of marriage of the prosecutrix with the appellant and birth of the child. The prosecutrix shold be produced before Dy. Registrar (Judicial) on 6.12.2017 at 10:30 AM along with her child.

¶20

Meanwhile, the learned Public Prosecutor is directed to obtain detailed- custody certificate of the

¶21

appellant depicting therein the period of undergone by the appellant as an under trial and after conviction.

¶22

A copy of this order under the seal and signature of the Court Master be handed over to the learned Public Prosecutor for onward transmission and necessary compliance."

¶23

¶24

In pursuance of the said order, Dy. Registrar (Judicial) on 6.12.2017, recorded the statement of the prosecutrix. The said

¶25

statement

¶26

p
.-:. .:o
152/2011
h.

¶27

Today also, the prosecutrix Pinky @ Babli daughter of Madan Lal, wife of appellant is present 'in the court. She is carrying a girl child aged three years and six months in her lap. She has been identified by her counsel Mr. Arvind Kumar.

¶28

Pinky @ Babli, who is present in the court has stated that she had herself accompanied the accused and she has performed marriage with the a.p,pellant and she is living in the st 9"" Qr house of appellap$-as z;,Jfe:-alid sezf child of the p * .* jk" accused appPIapt: t+f,h;2 "%# & **WR~>'@$< * 3 - fZ --y%&.,, ?'he learned Public Prosecutor has stated$@& out of C $ pc&:7&~ ,-%"t* total sehtence of ten years, appellant has undergo& actual sentence of three ye

¶29

had taken place November, 2011. In ns, under Section 3 IPC, prevailing at the e court because 1'' '+$ 3 $ proviso added to Secti ,# dss empowered to reduce ,g sentence less than m and special reasons.

¶30

of the view that the pe,culia<r facts, a.nd,ci~cumstances of the case, tdaq"qq id266 are adequate and constitute special reasons to reduce the sentence to the period less than the minimum prescribed.

¶31

Even though, the prosecutrix on the date of occurrence was less than 15 years of age, because she has performed marriage with the appellant and through out the trial she accepted the marriage and reiterated about said fact in her statement in the court, and has given a birth to child from her womb and loins of

¶32

appellant, and she alongwith a daughter aged three years and six months, is staying in her matrimonial home, with her parents in law, this Court is of the view that matrimonial life of the appellant and prosecutrix ought not to be disturbed because of continuous detention of the appellant. The appellant is required to rear his child. He being husband has to look after his wife also. The appellant and the prosecutrix struck by cupid's arrow fell in love &T gii r&&-* and being of imrna~.$~~~g.e~ 8-i .& % - w.it;hgutl$~~king consequences, "j' rb &: blinded by lo~g, ?p,erformed marriage and gave ljir .;. p ?the lap of mother has committed no prived of company of her father.

¶33

ances, this Court is of uietest by reducing

¶34

o the period already

¶35

t# t?%s Court being special and ir rb reduce the sentence the period already clause is set aside. In view of above aTy!m% the.-present qrsere rmw % rs2 appeal is disposed of. The ~p $? fl&$ CB &$f -.?* 4q appellant who is in custody be released fkom jail forthwith.

¶36

A copy of this order be sent to the learned trial court along with release order to be prepared bv the Reaistrv.

¶37

(KANWALIZIT SINGH AHLUWAL1A)J.

¶38

Mak/-

Suresh v. State of Rajasthan through Pp

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Suresh v. State of Rajasthan through Pp

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

Dhanpal and Anr. Vs State of Rajasthan through P P

Dhan Pal@ Babu Lal @ Suresh Vs State of Rajasthan through P P

Rajendra Singh Vs State of Rajasthan through Pp

Aarti Vs State of Rajasthan and Anr.

Mangilal Vs State of Rajasthan through Pp

Nemichand Vs State of Raj and Ors.