Partly allowed

Bhura and Anor v. State

Rajasthan HC4 Dec 2024CRLA/287/2002

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court of Rajasthan disposed of connected criminal revision and appeal. It dismissed the revision petition against an acquittal in a rape case, finding no perversity. It allowed the criminal appeal to modify sentences based on precedent regarding remand period.

What did the court decide?

Sentence of Bhura reduced to period undergone; fine maintained; Charan Singh granted probation and bail bonds discharged; revision petition dismissed.

Bhura and Anor Vs State — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Rajasthan HC (2024)

¶1

[2024:RJ-JP:49989]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶3

S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 874/2003

¶4

Smt. Kamro wife of Chhaju aged 40 years, R/o village Sewa, P.S. Wazirpur, district Gangapur City ----Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

Bhura s/o Ramphool, r/o Sewa, P.S. Wazirpur, District Sawaimadhopur.

¶7

State of Rajasthan ----Respondent

¶8

Connected With

¶9

S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 287/2002

¶10

Bhura s/o Ramphool, r/o Sewa, P.S. Wazirpur, District Sawaimadhopur.

¶11

Charan Singh @ Ram Charan s/o Bhura, r/o village Sewa, P.S. Wazirpur, District Sawaimadhopur. ----Appellants

¶12

Versus

¶13

The State of Rajasthan Through Public Prosecutor.

¶14

----Respondent

¶15

For Petitioner(s)	: Mr. Abdul Rahim Khan in CRLR
	No.874/2003
	Mr. Anurag Sharma in CRLP
	No.287/2002
For Respondent(s)	: Mr. Devi Singh, PP

¶16

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRAVEER BHATNAGAR Judgment

¶17

04/12/2024

¶18

These matters arise out of same incident, therefore, they are decided by this common judgment. For convenience, facts are taken from criminal revision petition No.874/2003.

¶19

The matter pertains to an incident which occurred in the year

¶20

2000 and the present cases are pending since the year 2002.

¶21

IN S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 874/2003:-

¶22

The present criminal revision petition filed under Section 397

¶23

read with Section 401 Cr.P.C. has been preferred against the

[2024:RJ-JP:49989]

[CRLR-874/2003]

(2 of 5)

judgment dated 21.02.2002 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, (Fast Track) Gangapur City in Sessions Case No.102/2001, whereby, the accused-respondent was acquitted for the offence under Section 376 of the IPC.

¶28

It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the accused-respondent Bhura has been wrongly acquitted under Section 376 of the IPC. The evidence of prosecutrix suggests that the accused-respondent committed rape with the prosecutrix. Learned trial Court brushed aside the evidence of prosecutrix PW-2 i.e., X, therefore, the acquittal order passed against the respondent under Section 376 of IPC is bad in law and wrongly decided.

¶29

Learned counsel on behalf of the accused-respondent as well as learned Public Prosecutor justify the order of acquittal passed by the concerned Court. It is argued that the learned Trial Court rightly appreciated the evidence of the prosecutrix PW-2 and observed that the evidence of prosecutrix PW-2 X is not reliable. The reasoning given by the concerned Court is not perverse. Further, the allegations of rape is not corroborated by medical evidence as PW-1 Hansraj Meena has denied the fact of commission of rape. No injury mark was found on the private parts of the prosecutrix. In the police statement of PW-2 X, it has not stated that the accused-respondent committed rape with her. Similarly, it is not probable that commission of rape occured in the presence of eye witness PW-3 Mukeshi. As per the statement of prosecutrix PW-2, her daughter in law, PW-3 Muskeshi was present at the place of occurrence. PW-3 in her statement made before the Court has stated that the accused-respondent

[2024:RJ-JP:49989]

[CRLR-874/2003]

(3 of 5)

committed rape with her mother in law. The version of PW-3 Mukeshi is not believable as it was not corroborated by medical evidence. Further, in the statement rendered under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. Mukeshi has not disclosed before the police that the accused-respondent Bhura committed rape with the prosecutrix. The Investigating Officer PW-11 Sita Ram has accepted that he also did not find commission of offence under Section 376 of IPC. He has also accepted the fact that the statement of prosecutrix was not recorded under Section 164 of Cr.P.C., and after considering all the above fact, the learned Court below acquitted the accsued-respondent-Bhura under Section 376 of IPC.

¶34

Considering the above facts, I do not find any perversity in the finding arrived at by the concerned Court below, therefore, the present revision petition is devoid of any merits and the same is hereby dismissed.

¶35

IN S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 287/2002:-

¶36

The present appeal has been filed under Sections 374 of Cr.P.C. against the judgment dated 21.02.2002 passed by Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track), Gangapur City in Sessions Case No.102/2001, whereby, the accused-appellants have been convicted and sentenced as under:-

¶37

Under Section 308/34 of IPC:-

¶38

Three years rigorous imprisonment alongwith fine of Rs.500/- each and in default of payment of fine, further ordered to undergo one month simple imprisonment.

¶39

Under Section 341/34 of IPC:-

¶40

One month simple imprisonment.

[2024:RJ-JP:49989]

[CRLR-874/2003]

(4 of 5)

Learned counsel for the appellants, makes a limited submission that the appellant-Bhura has already remained in custody from 11.01.2001 to 21.04.2001 for a period of 100 days, thus without making any interference on merits/conviction, the sentence awarded to appellant Bhura may be substituted with the period of sentence already undergone by him and appellant Charan Singh may be granted benefit of probation.

¶45

Learned Public Prosecutor opposes the same.

¶46

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:-

¶47

Alister Anthony Pareira (Supra)

¶48

“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.”

¶49

Haripada Das (Supra)

¶50

“…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…”

¶51

In light of the limited prayer made on behalf of the appellants and keeping in mind the aforementioned precedent laws, the present criminal appeal is allowed. Accordingly, while

[2024:RJ-JP:49989]

[CRLR-874/2003]

(5 of 5)

maintaining conviction of the appellants for the offences under Sections 308/34 & 341/34 of IPC, the sentence awarded to Bhura is reduced to the period already undergone by him and imposition of fine by the trial court is maintained. The appellant Charan Singh is on bail, thus he need to not surrender. Their bail bonds stand discharged accordingly. The appellant- Charan Singh may be granted the benefits of probation.

¶56

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

¶57

(PRAVEER BHATNAGAR),J

¶58

Keshav/1-2

Bhura and Anor v. State

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bhura and Anor 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

Kundar @ Kundan S/O Bacchulal Vs the State of Rajasthan

Sapat Khan S/O Rahim Vs State of Rajasthan

Ankit Sharma @ Rahul Sharma S/O Shri Sitaram Sharma Vs State of Rajasthan

Balla and Ors. Vs State

Lal Chand Vs State and Ors.

Saty Aveer Vs State