Partly allowed

Nainu Singh v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC15 Dec 2023CRLAS/347/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this criminal appeal under Section 374(2) CrPC, the High Court maintained the appellant's conviction for offences under the IPC and POCSO Act. Noting the appellant had already served a portion of the sentence, the Court reduced the substantive sentence to the period already undergone while maintaining the fine.

What did the court decide?

Sentence reduced to period already undergone; conviction and fine maintained; bail bonds discharged.

Nainu Singh Vs State of Rajasthan — Domestic Violence | Rajasthan HC (2023)

¶1

[2023:RJ-JD:44038]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶3

S.B. Criminal Appeal (Sb) No. 347/2022

¶4

Nainu Singh S/o Shri Roop Singh, Aged About 70 Years, B/c Rawat, R/o Kahari Jaggawas, Devgarh Police Station, District Rajsamand. (Confined In Central Jail, Udaipur)

¶5

----Appellant

¶6

Versus

¶7

State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp

¶8

----Respondent

¶9

For Appellant(s)	: Mr. Ashvini Kumar Swami
For Respondent(s)	: Mr. Mukesh Trivedi,PP

¶10

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR GARG

¶11

Order

¶12

15/12/2023

¶13

Instant criminal appeal has been filed by the appellant under Section 374(2) Cr.P.C. against the judgment dated 16.04.2021 passed by learned Special Judge, POCSO Act Cases, Rajsamand in Sessions Case No.15/2019 whereby, the learned trial court convicted and sentenced the present petitioner as under : Offence U/s 363 IPC : One years’ S.I. and a fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default of payment of fine, further undergo six months’ additional S.I.

¶14

Offence U/s 366-A IPC : Three years’ S.I. and a fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default of payment of fine, further six months’ additional S.I.

¶15

Offence U/s 354-A IPC : Three years’ R.I. and a fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default of payment of fine, further six months’ additional S.I.

[CRLAS-347/2022]

[2023:RJ-JD:44038]

(2 of 4)

Offence U/s 354-B IPC : Three years’ R.I. and a fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default of payment of fine, further six months’ additional S.I.

¶20

Offence U/s 9(M)/10 of POCSO Act: Five years’ R.I. and a fine of Rs.10,000/-, in default of payment of fine, further six months’ additional S.I.

¶21

All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently.

¶22

Brief facts of the case are that on 13.01.2019, complainant Smt. Vidhya Devi gave a written report to the Police, stating therein that, on 12.01.2019, when her minor daughter was playing with one Champa in the play ground of Rajeev Gandhi School, at about 4.30 p.m., appellant Nainu Singh enticed and took her daughter to the school kitchen on the pretext of giving her berries. When the complainant did not see her daughter, she went in search from her house with her another daughter Kiran. Suddenly they heard the noise of her daughter weeping, she entered into the kitchen, where she found the appellant with her minor daughter in objectionable condition who was crying. Thereafter, the complainant took her daughter to her husband and disclosed all the facts. Upon which a complaint was lodged against the appellant for offence under Sections 363, 366, 368, 354-A, 354-B and 376/511 of IPC and Section 9/10 of POCSO Act. The Police arrested the appellant and started investigation. Thereafter, the charges of the case were framed against the appellant. He denied the charges and claimed trial.

¶23

During the course of trial, the prosecution examined 13 witnesses and various documents were also exhibited. Thereafter,

[2023:RJ-JD:44038]

[CRLAS-347/2022]

(3 of 4)

statement of appellant under section 313 Cr.P.C was recorded. One defence witness was examined in this case.

¶28

Upon conclusion of the trial, the learned trial court vide impugned judgment dated 16.04.2021 convicted and sentenced the appellant for offence under Sections 363, 366-A, 354-A, 354-B of IPC and Section 9(M)/10 of POCSO Act as mentioned earlier.

¶29

At the threshold, counsel for the appellant does not challenge the finding of conviction but it is submitted that the occurrence relates back to year 2019 and the petitioner has so far suffered a sentence of about three years and eleven days, out of total sentence of five years’ R.I. In such circumstances, it is prayed that the substantive sentence awarded to the accusedappellant for the offence under Sections 363, 366-A, 354-A, 354-B of IPC and Section 9(M)/10 of POCSO Act may be reduced to the period already undergone by him.

¶30

On the other hand, the learned Public Prosecutor opposed the submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellant. The learned PP submitted that there is neither any occasion to interfere with the sentence awarded to the accused appellant nor any compassion or sympathy is called for in the said case.

¶31

Since the appellant’s counsel does not challenge the appellant’s conviction, this Court need not go into the merits of the case and accordingly, the conviction of the appellant as recorded by the learned trial court for the offence under Sections 363, 366-A, 354-A, 354-B of IPC and Section 9(M)/10 of POCSO Act is maintained.

[2023:RJ-JD:44038]

[CRLAS-347/2022]

(4 of 4)

Accordingly, the criminal appeal is partly allowed. While maintaining the petitioner’s conviction and sentence for offence under Sections 363, 366-A, 354-A, 354-B of IPC and Section 9(M)/ 10 of POCSO Act, the sentence awarded to him for aforesaid offence is hereby reduced to the period already undergone. The amount of fine is hereby maintained. Three months’ time is granted to deposit the fine amount before the trial Court. In default of payment of fine the petitioner shall undergo six month’s additional S.I. The appellant is on bail. He need not surrender. His bail bonds stand discharged.

¶36

The record of the court below be sent back forthwith.

¶37

(MANOJ KUMAR GARG),J

¶38

261-Ishan/-

Nainu Singh v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nainu Singh v. State of Rajasthan

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

Sreemant Mahish @ Chanki S/O Shri Pramod Nath Mahish Vs State of Rajasthan

Sugan Singh S/O Dhanna Ram Vs State of Rajasthan

Sunil S/O Virendra Vs the State of Rajashtan

Gopal Lal @ Gopilal Vs State

Nayeem and Anr. Vs State

Neelam Vs Amit Gharu