Partly allowed

Vajiya v. State

Rajasthan HC1 Jul 2022CRLA/208/1990

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Rajasthan, Jodhpur, in a criminal appeal against conviction under Sections 376 and 342 IPC for rape and abduction, partly allowed the appeal. While maintaining the conviction, the court reduced the sentence to the period already undergone by the appellant considering the long pendency of the case, discrepancies in prosecution evidence, and the twin objectives of sentencing.

What did the court decide?

The sentence awarded to the appellant was reduced to the period already undergone by him; bail bonds discharged.

Vajiya Vs State — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Rajasthan HC (2022)

¶1

(1 of 4)

¶2

[CRLA-208/1990]

¶3

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶4

S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 208/1990

¶5

Vajiya son of Shri Daliya, by caste Bhil, resident of Manawato-Ka Gudha, present – Sarhad Lapi, District Pali. (At present confined in Sub-Jail, Bali.)

----Appellant

Versus

State of Rajasthan.

		----Respondent
For Appellant(s)	: Mr. Mr.	Bhagat Dadhich & K.C Sharma for Mr. Mridul Jain.
For Respondent(s)	: Mr.	Abhishek Purohit,Addl.G.A.

¶10

HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI

¶11

Judgment

¶12

01/07/2022

¶13

This criminal appeal under Section 374(2) Cr.P.C. has been preferred claiming the following reliefs:

¶14

“It is, therefore, respectfully prayed that the Appeal of the Appellant may kindly be accepted and the judgment and order dated 9.7.1990 of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bali, may be set aside and the Appellant be ordered to be acquitted and released forthwith. ”

¶15

The matter pertains to an incident which occurred in the year 1988 and the present appeal has been pending since the year 1990.

¶16

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that this Criminal Appeal has been preferred against the impugned judgment dated 09.07.1990, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bali in Sessions Case No.3/1989, whereby the appellant was convicted

¶17

(2 of 4)

¶18

[CRLA-208/1990]

¶19

for the offences under Sections 376 & 342 IPC and sentenced as

¶20

under :-

¶21

Sections	Sentence
376 IPC	Seven years’ R.I. and a fine of Rs. 100/- default of
	payment of which he was ordered to further undergo
	15 days’ R.I.
342 IPC	Three months’ R.I.

¶22

Learned counsel for the appellant has pointed out that the incident is of 02.04.1988. Learned counsel further submits to the help of the medical report that there were no injuries whatsoever on the body of the prosecutrix. Learned counsel also submits that the appellant has already undergone a custody of two years and five months. Learned counsel further submits that there is an inconsistency in the statement as well as the medical report, which casts a shadow of doubt over the prosecution story.

¶23

Learned counsel for the appellant has also taken this Court through the testimonies of the witnesses of PW-1 Kumari Bhanwari, PW-2 Kisna, PW-3 Shanker, PW-4 Parta Ram, PW-5 Banshiya, PW-6 Dhulki, PW-7 Chena Ram, PW-8 Devi Singh, PW-9 Roopli, PW-10 Bhanwar Singh and PW-11 Dr. N.K. Sharma.

¶24

Learned counsel for the appellant also submits that there is no medical report whatsoever to corroborate the stand of the prosecutrix. Learned counsel further submits that though the learned trial court has arrived at a conclusion of conviction, but in fact the benefit of doubt had to be given to the present appellant as there were contradictions in the statements rendered by the prosecutrix as well as the other witnesses. However, learned counsel for the appellant after making strong submissions on

¶25

(3 of 4)

¶26

[CRLA-208/1990]

¶27

merits submits that he only prays for a limited submissions of the sentence be reduced to undergone in light of the fact that the appellant has already undergone sentence of about two years and five months, out of the total sentence awarded to him, which was seven years.

¶28

Learned counsel for the appellant further submits that the sentence so awarded to the appellant was however suspended by this Hon’ble Court, vide order dated 12.10.1990 passed in S.B. Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.215/1990.

¶29

Learned Public Prosecutor opposes the submissions. 9. This Court is conscious of the judgments rendered in, Alister Anthony Pareira Vs. State of Maharashtra (2012) 2 SCC 648 and Haripada Das Vs. State of W.B. (1998) 9 SCC 678 wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court observed as under:-

¶30

Alister Anthony Pareira (Supra)

¶31

“ There is no straitjacket formula for sentencing an accused on proof of crime. The courts have evolved certain principles: twin objective of the sentencing policy is deterrence and correction. What sentence would meet the ends of justice depends on the facts and circumstances of each case and the court must keep in mind the gravity of the crime, motive for the crime, nature of the offence and all other attendant circumstances. ”

¶32

Haripada Das (Supra)

¶33

“…considering the fact that the respondent had already undergone detention for some period and the case is pending for a pretty long time for which he had suffered both financial hardship and mental agony and also considering the fact that he had been released on bail as far back as on 17-1-1986, we feel that the ends of justice will be met in the facts of the case if the sentence is reduced to the period already undergone…”

¶34

(4 of 4) [CRLA-208/1990]

¶35

This Court on conjoint consideration of the fact that the incident is of 1988 and the appeal itself is pending since 1990 whereas the appellant has undergone sentence of two years and five months and there are discrepancies, which entitle the appellant for leniency of reduction of sentence.

¶36

In light of the limited prayer made on behalf of the appellant, and keeping in mind the aforementioned precedent laws, the present appeal is partly allowed. Accordingly, while maintaining the appellant’s conviction under Sections 376 & 342 IPC, as above, the sentence awarded to him is reduced to the period already undergone by him. The appellant is on bail. He need not surrender. His bail bonds stand discharged accordingly.

¶37

All pending applications stand disposed of. Record of the learned court below be sent back forthwith.

¶38

(DR.PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI), J.

¶39

1-Weekly/Zeeshan

Vajiya v. State

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vajiya v. State

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

State of Rajasthan Vs Mukesh

Phool Singh Vs State

Mishri Lal Vs Union of India

Mohan Lal Vs State

Amarjeet Vs State

Taj Mohd Vs State and Ors.