1 S. B. Criminal Appeal No. 210/1986 Shobha Ram Vs. State IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR JUDGMENT S. B. Criminal Appeal No. 210/1986 Shobha Ram Vs. State of Rajasthan. Date of Judgment: 22.12.2010 Hon'ble Mr. Narendra Kumar Jain,J. Mr. Karanpal Singh, for the accused- appellant. Mr. J.R. Bijarnia, Public Prosecutor, for the State. BY THE COURT: Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. This appeal, on behalf of accused- appellant, is directed against impugned judgment and order dated 31.03.1986 passed by Additional District and Sessions Judge, Deeg (Bharatpur) in Case No. 42/1985, whereby he has been convicted and sentenced under Section 368 I.P.C. to two years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 2,00/-, in default of payment of fine, to further undergo one month's rigorous imprisonment. 2 S. B. Criminal Appeal No. 210/1986 Shobha Ram Vs. State 3. Initially, learned counsel for the appellant argued the case on merits, but in view of admission of charge by the appellant in respect of Section 368 I.P.C., he did not press the appeal on merits and submitted that appellant has already remained in jail for about 31 days and there is no minimum sentence prescribed under Section 368 I.P.C. and occurrence took place in the year 1985, therefore, sentence of imprisonment of the appellant awarded by the trial court may be reduced to a period of sentence of imprisonment already undergone by him. 4. Learned Public Prosecutor defended the impugned judgment and prayed for dismissal of the appeal. 5. I have considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and examined the impugned judgment as well as record of the trial court. 6. Exhibit P-1, F.I.R. No. 30/1985 was registered at Police Station Nagar District 3 S. B. Criminal Appeal No. 210/1986 Shobha Ram Vs. State Bharatpur against one Ashok and present appellant Shobha Ram for the offence under Sections 366 and 376 I.P.C., wherein it was alleged that Ashok abducted Mst. Maya Devi and handed over her to Shobha Ram, who kept Mst. Maya Devi for a period of two days. After completion of investigation, police submitted challan against the present appellant Shobha Ram for the offence under Sections 368 and 376 I.P.C. 7. Learned trial court framed charge against appellant under Sections 368 and 376 I.P.C. Accused-appellant replied that he brought a woman and kept her for two days, but he did not commit any sexual intercourse with her. Prosecution in support of its case, examined P.W. 1 Roop Narain Sharma; P.W. 2 Dr. B.L. Gupta; P.W. 3 Jagdish Prasad and P.W. 4 R.P. Gupta and also produced documentary evidence. 8. It is relevant to mention that in the present case, the prosecutrix Mst. Maya Devi was not examined on behalf of the 4 S. B. Criminal Appeal No. 210/1986 Shobha Ram Vs. State prosecution. 9. Learned trial court after considering the evidence available on record, acquitted the appellant of the charge under Section 376 I.P.C. and convicted him under Section 368 I.P.C., as mentioned above. 10. From the contents of First Information Report as well as prosecution evidence, it is borne out that main allegation of abduction of Maya Devi was against Ashok, against whom no chargesheet was filed in the present case; Police witnesses have stated before the trial court that Mst. Maya Devi used to go with other persons voluntarily and she was habitual in doing so. Learned trial court has not convicted the appellant under Section 376 I.P.C., for the reason that Mst. Maya Devi did not appear in the witness box. Although, from the prosecution evidence, charge under Section 368 I.P.C. against the appellant is not made out clearly, particularly in absence of challan and conviction of Ashok, but 5 S. B. Criminal Appeal No. 210/1986 Shobha Ram Vs. State appellant admitted the ingredients of Section 368 I.P.C. at the time of framing of charge against him. In these circumstances, I find that leaned counsel for the appellant was right in not pressing the appeal on merits, so far as order of conviction is concerned. However, I find force in his submissions of reducing the sentence of imprisonment of the appellant awarded by the trial to a period of imprisonment already undergone by him. 11. It is also relevant to mention that incident in the present case took place way back on 15.03.1985 and more than 25 years have already expired since then. The appellant has already remained in jail for about 31 days during investigation/trial of the case. Since Mst. Maya Devi did not appear in witness box and no challan has been filed against co-accused Ashok, against whom there was allegation for abduction of Mst. Maya Devi, in these circumstances, I am satisfied that this is a fit case wherein sentence of imprisonment of the appellant awarded by the trial court be reduced to a 6 S. B. Criminal Appeal No. 210/1986 Shobha Ram Vs. State period of imprisonment of 31 days already undergone by him. 12. Consequently, appeal is, partly allowed. Conviction of the appellant Shobha Ram under Section 368 I.P.C. is maintained, but his sentence of imprisonment awarded by the trial court is reduced to a period of imprisonment already undergone by him. 13. The appellant is on bail and he need not to surrender. His bail bonds are discharged. (Narendra Kumar Jain),J. Manoj Item No.27.