1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN, JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR. JUDGMENT Hansraj Meena @ Rajesh @ Mangej Vs. State of Rajasthan (S.B. Criminal Appeal No.45/2009) S.B. Criminal Appeal Under Section 374(2) Cr.P.C. Date of Judgment: December 10, 2010 PRESENT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.S. CHAUHAN Mr.Biri Singh, for the appellant. Mr.Javed Chaudhary, Public Prosecutor. Mr.Rajesh Kala, for the complainant. BY THE COURT: Although this case is listed today upon suspension of sentence, but considering the fact that the parties have entered into a compromise, both the parties have made a limited prayer that the case should be decided at this stage itself. According to Mr. Biri Singh, the learned counsel for the appellant, both the appellant and the prosecutrix have entered into a compromise, a compromise available in the Court file. Moreover, the prosecutrix, Mst. Salma Khan, is present before this Court and has been identified by her counsel. Her presence is marked in the Court file. With the consent of the parties this case is being decided at this stage. 2 The appellant has challenged the judgment and order dated 12.12.2008, passed by the Special Judge, (Women Atrocities and Dowry Cases), Jaipur City, Jaipur, whereby the learned Judge had convicted and sentenced the appellant for offences under Sections 363, 366, 376 and 458 IPC, and under Section 3/25 of the Arms Act. The learned Judge has sentenced him for offence under Section 363 IPC to three years of rigorous imprisonment, with a fine of Rs.1,000/-, and to further undergo two months rigorous imprisonment in default thereof; for offence under Section 366 IPC to five years rigorous imprisonment, with a fine of Rs.2,000/-, and to further undergo four months rigorous imprisonment in default thereof; for offence under Section 376 IPC to ten years of rigorous imprisonment, with a fine of Rs.2,000/-, and to further undergo four months rigorous imprisonment in default thereof; for offence under Section 458 IPC to ten years of rigorous imprisonment, with a fine of Rs.2,000/-, and to further undergo four months rigorous imprisonment in default thereof; and for offences under Section 3/25 of Arms Act to two years of rigorous imprisonment, with a fine of Rs.500/-, and to further undergo fifteen days rigorous imprisonment in default thereof. 3 Mr. Biri Singh has contended that in the case of Hasi Mohan Barman & Anr. Vs. State of Assam & Anr. [JT 2007 (13) SC 140], the Hon'ble Supreme Court had observed that in case of compromise, the sentence can be reduced to as undergone. He has further relied upon the case of State of Punjab Vs. Rakesh Kumar [(2008) 12 SCC 33], a case dealing with the conviction under Section 376 IPC, to buttress the contention that the sentence awarded by the learned trial court can be reduced by this Court. For, in that case a sentence of seven years awarded by the trial court was reduced by the Apex Court to three years. According to the learned counsel, the appellant has already served a sentence of four years. Therefore, it is a fit case, considering the compromise entered into the parties, to reduce the sentence from ten years to four years which is the period as undergone. On the other hand, Mr. Javed Chaudhary, the learned Public Prosecutor, has contended that a minimum sentence of seven years has been prescribed as punishable for offence under Section 376 IPC. Special reasons must exist for the court to reduce the sentence less than the minimum sentence. 4 Mr. Rajesh Kala, the learned counsel for the prosecutrix, has contended that the prosecutrix no longer wishes to prosecute the appellant. Since the appellant happens to be a resident of the same village, since their families have entered into a compromise, the prosecutrix does not wish to inflict more punishment than the punishment already undergone by the appellant. Thus, he also pleads that the sentence should be reduced to as undergone. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the case law cited at the Bar and the compromise submitted before this Court. The purpose of court is not merely to punish the accused persons, but is also to ensure that harmony be maintained within the society. The appellant has already served a punishment of four years. Therefore, he has already suffered for the alleged offence committed by him. Considering the fact that parties have entered into a compromise, considering the fact that his further incarceration would not achieve any beneficial purpose, it would be in the interest of justice to reduce the sentence imposed by the trial court from ten years to the period already undergone by 5 the appellant. Therefore, while confirming the conviction vide judgment dated 12.12.2008, this Court reduces the sentence of the appellant to the period already undergone by him. The appellant shall be set at liberty forthwith, if not wanted in any other criminal case. Hence, this appeal is disposed of. (R.S. CHAUHAN) J. Manoj solanki