LexSTATE OF RAJASTHAN versus RAM NARAIN AND ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B STATE OF RAJASTHAN v. RAM NARAIN AND ORS. JANUARY 23, 1996 [K. RAMASWAMY, S. SAGHIR AHMED AND G.B. PATTANAIK, JJ.) Penal Code. 1860 : Sections 342, 361, 366, 376-Minor girl-Wrongful confinement and C rape-Trial--All three accused convicted and sentenced-High Court reducing their sentence to the period undergone-On appea~ held victim being minor, question of consent does not arise-Rape by first accused proved-Also not falsely implicating the accused as the victim alleged rape by first accused alone-Judgment of High Court set aside-Conviction of first accused D upheld-Sentenced to five years' r.i. u/s. 376 and fine of Rs. 2, 000 to be paid to the victim-All three accused sentence ta five years' imprisonment under S. 366 and one year under S. 342. E CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No. 189 of 1996. From the Judgment and Order dated 18.12.91 of the Rajasthan High Court in S.B. Cr!. A. No. 351 of 1984. K.S. Bhati for the Appellant. F Sushi! Kumar Jain for the Respondent. G The following Order of the Court was delivered : Leave granted. Heard learned counsel on both side. It is rather curious that the learned judge while confirming the conviction of the three respondents, viz., Ram Narain, Bajrang Lal and Manja Ram, for offences under Sections 376, 366 and 342, Indian Penal Code ["!PC", for short) in respect of Ram Narain under Sections 366 and H 342, IPC in respect of respondent Nos. 2 and 3, reduced their sentence to 874 .. " STATEv. RAM NARAIN 875 the period already undergone, viz., one and a half months. Notice was A issued by this Court against the reduction of the sentence by the High Court. The facts are that on August 14, 1983 when victim Anoop Devi aged between 15 and 17 years was coming from the house of her uncle to her parents' house, these accused enticed her to believe that all the women-folk had assembled at the outskirts of the village to go to Circus and induced B her to accompany them. Innocently believing their statement, she accom- panied them to the outskirts but did not find women-folk there. She was taken at knife point to another village by name Siroha and from there to Jaipur in a truck. In Jaipur, she was wrongfully confined in a house. From C Jaipur, she was taken to Murtipura where first accused-respondent had sexual intercourse with her. She was wrongfully confmed in that house. From there she was brought back to her village and was confined in the house of the first accused. On coming to know of it, the father of the victim . [PW 3] made a complaint to the police and the police recovered her from D the house of the first accused. At the trial, five witnesses, viz., the victim (PW 1 ], her mother and father (PWs 2 and 3) and neighbours (PWs 4 and 5) were examined. The Sessions Judge after appreciating the evidence and believing the evidence of PW 1, the victim, her mother and father (PWs 2 and 3) an,d neighbours E [PWs 4 and 5], convicted the first accused for offence under Sections 376, 366 and 342 !PC and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for seven years, five years and one year respectively and also imposed fine of Rs. 200. Equally, the second and third accused were convicted under Sections 366 and 342, !PC and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for five years and F one year respectively. All the sentences were directed to run concurrently. The accused-respondents c~rried the matter in appeal and the learned Judge had held that the evidence on record was sufficient to prove that the prosecution has established its case without any room for doubt. However, he reduced the sentence and allowed the appeal. He observed that the age of first accused, viz., 18 years, and the sentence of one and a half months G which he had already undergone, would be sufficient to meet the ends of justice. Accordingly, the learned Judge held that justice would be met in case th~ sentence was reduced to the period already undergone by them. Shri Sushi! Kumar Jain, the learned· counsel for the respondents H 876 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1996) 1 S.C.R. A contended that looking at the evidence of the victim herself, the High Court was justified in reducing the sentence. She is a consenting party and without independent corroboration, her evidence would be suspect and could not be relied upon. The offence had taken place on April 14, 1983 and the report was lodged by the father of the victim on May 13, 1983, i.e., B
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.