SBCr.Appeal No.488/86. 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR. J U D G M E N T S.B. CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.488/1986. Rampal Vs. State of Rajasthan Date of Judgment : September 4, 2008. PRESENT HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMAD RAFIQ Shri S.K. Gupta and Miss Surbhi Gupta for the accused-appellant. Shri D.D. Sharma, Public Prosecutor for the State. **** BY THE COURT :- This criminal appeal has been preferred by accused-Rampal against the judgment of conviction of learned Additional Sessions Judge Karauli dated 28/10/1986 by which he was convicted for offences u/Ss.365 and 394 IPC and was sentenced to 1½ years rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs.500/- with the further stipulation that in case of default in payment of fine, he shall to undergo further rigorous imprisonment of six months for each of the offences. 2) Learned counsel for the appellant has assailed the judgment on the ground that learned trial court erred in law on various counts. He argued that prosecution has misrably failed to prove guilt of the appellant inasmuch as, same set of evidence SBCr.Appeal No.488/86. 2 was not believed by the trial court in so far as the charge against co-accused Sripat was concerned. When Sripat was acquitted, there was no reason why the appellant should have alone been convicted on the basis of same set of evidence. Statements of prosecution witnesses are full of contradictions inasmuch as, evidence proved the fact that appellant had certain business dealings with complainant-Jugal Kishore Patwari and ultimately when matter was sorted out, he on his own went to attend duty. On the basis of such weak evidence, appellant could not be convicted. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that out of total period of sentence of 1½ years of sentence, the appellant has already undergone 4 months & 7 days in incarceration. The incident is of the year 1985 and the circumstances in which the incident took place, indicates that there were business dealings between the accused and the complainant. It is contended that at the time when incident took place, appellant was a young boy of 24 years of age and by now, he is 47 years of age and is well settled in the family. Sending him behind the bars at this late stage, would be too harsh upon him. Learned counsel for the appellant therefore prayed that accused appellant be released on the period of sentence already undergone by him. 3) Shri D.D. Sharma, learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the appeal and submitted that accused- SBCr.Appeal No.488/86. 3 appellant forcibly abducted complainant-Jugal Kishore Patwari when he was on his way from Village Lagara to Village Chatda at about 6.00 pm on 13/6/1985. He forced him to write a letter to his family and demand a sum of Rs.1 lac. Complainant was kept under his illegal confinment during which, complainant was subjected to merciless beatings. Attention of the court was invited to the statement of Dr.Santosh Kumar Wasane to show that complainant-Jugal Kishore Patwari sustained 11 injuries. Learned Public Prosecutor also referred to the statements of PW-2 Jugal Kishore Patwari and PW-3 Ganpat to prove the written letter of Jugal Kishore Patwari Exh.P.2. 4) On consideration of the entire evidence which is on record, I am satisfied that prosecution was able to prove the offences as alleged against the accused-appellant beyond reasonable doubt but at the same time co-accused Sripat was given benefit of doubt because his offence was not proved in the same manner as that of the appellant. 5) Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perusing the impugned-judgment as well as record of the learned court below and in view of the arguments aforesaid specially, peculiar fact that incident is of the year 1985 and the appellant has already served 4 months & 7 days of sentence, I am of the considered view that ends of justice would be met if the conviction and sentence of fine awarded to the SBCr.Appeal No.488/86. 4 appellant by the trial court are maintained but at the same time, sentence of 1½ years awarded to the appellant for each of the offences is converted into the period of sentence already undergone by the accused-appellant i.e. 4 months & 7 days. 6) In the result, the appeal is partly allowed. While therefore maintaining the conviction and sentence of fine, I reduce the period of originally awarded sentence of 1½ years to 4 months & 7 days i.e. the period of sentence already undergone by the appellant. 7) It is, therefore, ordered that accused- appellant Rampal S/o Hari Chand, R/o Santalpur, P.S. Mandarail, District Sawai Madhopur be released on the period of sentence already undergone by him i.e. 4 months & 7 days out of total period of sentence of 1½ years. Record be transmitted to the court below forthwith. (MOHAMMAD RAFIQ), J. anil/-