Criminal Appeal No. 740-SB of 1998 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Appeal No.740-SB of 1998 DATE OF DECISION: July 29, 2010. Rohtash alias Pandia .....APPELLANT VERSUS State of Haryana .....RESPONDENT CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE T.P.S.MANN PRESENT: Mr Bipan Ghai, Sr. Advocate with Mr Sandeep Gehlawat, Advocate Mr Ravish Kaushik, Asstt. Advocate General, Haryana T.P.S .MANN,J. (Oral): By one order, the Court intends to dispose of the present appeal filed by convict-Rohtash alias Pandia and Criminal Appeal No. 736-SB of 1998, filed by convict-Bagga Singh, as both the appeals have arisen out of the judgment and order passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Bhiwani on 25/26.8.1998, whereby they were held guilty under Section 376 read with Section 34 IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of ten years and to pay a fine of Rs.3000/-each and in default of payment of fine, to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months. According to the prosecution, on 17.1.1996 at about 12.00 noon, the prosecutrix, who was 15 years of age, took her buffalo to the village pond. However, the buffalo starting running towards the fields. She followed her buffalo and reached near the fields of Balmikies, from where the appellants came out and caught hold of her. She was taken to the field where mustard crop was growing and raped by both the appellants. She cried for help, but no one was present nearby and, thus, none came to Criminal Appeal No. 740-SB of 1998 -2- her rescue. After sometime, Inder Singh and Ram Diya reached there and on seeing them, the appellants left her and fled from the spot. The prosecutrix then put on her clothes and came to her house, where she informed her aunt about the incident. Her aunt sent Amrik Singh to village Lakhan Majra so as to inform her uncle Surain Singh about the incident. Ultimately, on 19.1.1996 the prosecutrix, alongwith her uncle Surain Singh and aunt Gurdeep Kaur went to Police Station and made a statement about the incident, on the basis of which FIR No.22 dated 19.1.1996 was registered against the appellants at Police Station, Bawanikhera for the offence under Section 376 read with Section 34 IPC. Learned counsel for the appellants have not challenged the conviction of the appellants, as recorded by the trial Court. However, they have submitted that the occurrence in question had taken place on 17.1.1996 and the FIR was registered against the appellants on 19.1.1996. Ever since then, they have been facing the agony of criminal prosecution. The trial Court had recorded the age of Rohtash alias Pandia as 20 years, whereas that of Bagga Singh as 21 years. The present appeal has remained pending in this Court for the last about 12 years. Both the appellants have already undergone about two years and three months, out of their substantive sentences of imprisonment imposed upon them by the trial Court. The appellants are only bread-winners of their respective families. Their substantive sentences of imprisonment be reduced to that already undergone by them. On the other hand, learned State counsel has submitted that the appellants had raped a young girl of the age of 15 years and therefore, they are not entitled to be shown any leniency in the matter of their sentence. Criminal Appeal No. 740-SB of 1998 -3- Though, according to the prosecution, both the appellants had committed rape upon the prosecutrix and for that act of theirs, they exposed themselves to being held liable for the offence under Section 376 (2) (g) IPC, yet none of them was charged for the said offence. Instead, they were charged for the offence under Section 376 read with Section 34 IPC. As such, technically speaking the appellants are not required to be sentenced to undergo minimum imprisonment for ten years. Moreover, from the custody certificates produced by the learned State counsel today in the Court, it is apparent that appellant Rohtash alias Pandia has undergone an actual period of sentence of two years, one month and sixteen days in jail, whereas in the case of appellant Bagga Singh, the said period is two years, three months and eighteen days. The said period also included the under-trial period spent by the appellants in jail. Taking into consideration the totality of the circumstances, this Court is of the view that the sentences of imprisonment imposed upon the appellants can be reduced to seven years. Resultantly, the conviction of the appellants under Section 376 read with Section 34 IPC is maintained. Their substantive sentences of imprisonment are reduced from ten years to rigorous imprisonment for seven years. The sentence of fine, alongwith its default clause is maintained. The appeals are, accordingly, disposed of. July 29, 2010 (T.P.S.MANN) Pds JUDGE