# Rajendra Singh (In Jail) v. State

- **Citation:** (2020) 11 ILRA 426
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2020-08-06
- **Case number:** Criminal Appeal No. 66 of 1987
- **Bench:** Sanjay Kumar Singh
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/rajendra-singh-in-jail-v-state-45417
- **Pages:** 6

## Headnote

Criminal Law - Indian Penal Code,1860 -
Sections 363, 366, 368 and 376 - Criminal
Appeal has been filed against the conviction.

QUANTUM OF SENTENCES :
Appellant is an old man, aged about 62 years.
The fact and circumstances of the case and
the substantive period already undergone by
the appellant in this case and he has realized
that the mistake committed by him and is
remorseful of his conduct to the society to
which he belongs and now he wants to
transform himself. (Para 31)
The conviction of the appellant stands
affirmed. The sentence is modified and the
period already undergone by the appellant.
(Para 32)

Appeal Partly allowed. (E-2)

List of Cases cited :-

## Text

426 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Member Secretaries who may apprise the
Court as to how the applicants or like
victims of mass disaster were or are being
helped during Pandemic Covid-19. The
Member Secretary, U.P. State Legal
Services Authority shall appear before
this Court in person on the next date of
listing with all relevant details from the
respective districts. Before any further
order is passed on the dereliction of duty
on
the
part
of
respective
magistrates/Session Judges, the Senior
Registrar of this Court, in the light of
report forwarded to this Court on
29.9.2020
by
the
District
Judge,
Lucknow, is hereby directed to obtain the
relevant details of magistrates/Session
Judges from district Lucknow/Hardoi
who have failed to pass remand orders
from 25.3.2020 to 16.6.2020. The Senior
Registrar of this Court shall also remain
present in the Court when the case is
listed next.

35. List on 10.12.2020.
----------
(2020)11ILR A426
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 06.08.2020

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SANJAY KUMAR SINGH, J.

Criminal Appeal No. 66 of 1987

Rajendra Singh ...Appellant (In Jail)
Versus
State ...Opposite Party

Counsel for the Appellant:
Sri Y.S. Saxena, Sri Vinod Kr. Srivastava,
Sri Vinod Kumar Sharma

Counsel for the Opposite Party:
A.G.A.
Criminal Law - Indian Penal Code,1860 -
Sections 363, 366, 368 and 376 - Criminal
Appeal has been filed against the conviction.

QUANTUM OF SENTENCES :
Appellant is an old man, aged about 62 years.
The fact and circumstances of the case and
the substantive period already undergone by
the appellant in this case and he has realized
that the mistake committed by him and is
remorseful of his conduct to the society to
which he belongs and now he wants to
transform himself. (Para 31)
The conviction of the appellant stands
affirmed. The sentence is modified and the
period already undergone by the appellant.
(Para 32)

Appeal Partly allowed. (E-2)

List of Cases cited :-

1. B.G. Goswami Vs Delhi Administration,

2. Sattan Sahani Vs St. of Bihar & ors.

3. Bankat & anr. Vs St. of Mah.

4. Uthem Rajanna Vs St. of Andh. P.

5. Neelam Bahal & ors. Vs St. of U.P.

(Delivered by Hon'ble Sanjay Kumar Singh, J.)

1. This criminal appeal has been
preferred
by
the
appellant,
namely,
Rajendra Singh against the judgment and
order dated 16.12.1986 passed by Special
Judge (E.C. Act), Budaun in Sessions Trial
No. 24 of 1985 (State vs Rajendra and
others) arising out of Case Crime No. 4 of
1984, under sections 363, 366, 368 and 376
IPC, police station Ughaiti, district Budaun,
whereby the accused appellant-Rajendra
Singh has been convicted and sentenced to
four years' rigorous imprisonment under
section 366 IPC.
11 All. Rajendra Singh Vs. State
427

2. However, by the same order, the
learned Special Judge acquitted the coaccused persons, namely, Sukkhi, Smt.
Ramkali and Room Singh under section
363 and 366 IPC and Sunder, Ram
Bharosey, Chandra Pal, Smt. Tikola alias
Ganga Devi, Gokil, Smt. Mallo and Smt.
Lareti under section 368 IPC.

3. In short compass, the facts of the
case as unfolded by the prosecution in the
first information report lodged by the
informant, Man Singh on 07.01.1984 at
about 12.30 PM at the police station
Ughaiti, Sahaswan district Budaun are that
on 14.12.1983 at about 6.00 AM accused,
Rajendra (present appellant), his father
Sukkhi, Smt. Ramkali (first wife of Sukkhi
and real mother of appellant Rajendra
Singh), second wife of Sukkhi, who is
known by the name of Thakurani, and
Room Singh (son-in-law of Sukkhi) came
to the house of the informant. Sukkhi stated
that Katha would be recited at the house of
his son-in-law Room Singh and requested
the informant to permit his grand-daughter
Km. Pravesh (herein-after referred to as
"the prosecutrix") to accompany them to
village
Mahanagar.
As
the
accused,
Rajendra and his parents also resided in the
same village and both the families had
cordial relations, complainant-Man Singh
allowed the prosecutrix, who was aged
about 15-16 years, to go with them. The
prosecutrix left the house along with the
accused in the presence of witnesses Vijay
Singh, Hardwari and Mahendra Singh. It
was also mentioned in the FIR that when
after 4-5 days accused Sukkhi along with
his both the wives returned, he enquired
from Sukkhi about the prosecutrix, who
told him that she stayed in his relations and
will come back in 2-4 days. However,
when she did not return, he went to
Mahanagar to search the prosecutrix, but in
vain. He came to know that Rajendra and
prosecutrix are not present in Mahanagar.
Thereafter, first information report was
lodged by the informant that his minor
grand-daughter, aged about 15-16 years,
has been enticed away by the accusedappellant, Rajendra Singh in collusion with
the afore-mentioned persons.

4. On the basis of the aforesaid report,
a case was registered against Rajendra
Singh
(present
appellant),
his
father
Sukkhi, Smt. Ramkali (first wife of Sukkhi
and real mother of appellant Rajendra
Singh), Thakurani (second wife of Sukkhi)
and Room Singh (son-in-law of Sukkhi) at
Case Crime No. 4 of 1984, under Sections
366 and 368 IPC.

5. After the registration of the FIR,
the law set into motion and the case was
entrusted to PW-7, S.I. Horam Singh
Tyagi, who recorded the statements of
witnesses and inspected the spot and
prepared site plan. Thereafter, PW-7
proceeded on leave and investigation of the
case was entrusted to S.I. Chhattar Singh.
On 10.01.1984, S.I. Chhattar Singh arrested
the accused Sukkhi and recorded his
statement. On 11.01.1984, he recorded the
statement of accused Rajendra Singh in the
police station civil lines, who was detained
there after his arrest. He also recorded the
statement of the prosecutrix on the same
day. On 12.01.1984 S.I. Chhattar Singh
arrested
accused
Sundar
and
Ram
Bharosey.

6. On 25.01.1984, the investigation of
the case was again handed over to S.I. PW7, Horam Singh, who after completion of
investigation and necessary formalities,
submitted the charge sheet on 03.02.1984
against accused, Rajendra Singh, Sukkhi,
Room Singh, Sunder and Ram Bharosey,
428 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
which he proved as Ext. Ka-18, on
29.02.1984 against Smt. Ramkali and on
05.04.1984 against Chandrapal, Smt. Tikoli
@ Ganga Devi, Gokil, Smt. Mallo and Smt.
Lareti (Ext. Ka-20) for the offence under
sections 366 and 368 IPC.

7. As the case was exclusively triable
by the Court of Sessions, the learned
Magistrate committed the case to the Court of
Sessions on 21.01.1985, where case was
registered as Sessions Trial No. 24 of 1985
and learned Special Judge, (E.C. Act),
Budaun vide order dated 27.05.1986 framed
the charges against all the accused namely,
Rajendra, Sukkhi, Smt. Ram Kali, Ram
Bharosey, Room Singh, Sunder, Chandrapal,
Smt. Tikoli alias Ganga Devi, Gokil, Smt.
Mallo and Smt. Lareti under sections 363,
366, 376 and 368 IPC.

8. To bring home guilt of the appellant,
the prosecution has examined as many as 7
witnesses, out of which PW-1, Man Singh,
PW-3, Hardwari, PW-4 Vijay and PW-5 Km.
Pravesh were the witnesses of facts and the
remaining were formal witnesses.

9. PW-1, Man Singh is the informant
and grand-father of the prosecutrix Km.
Pravesh. He reiterated the versions mentioned
in the first information report.

10. PW-2, Dr. P.K. Agarwal deposed
that on 11.01.1984 she was posted as
Medical Superintendent at District Women
Hospital, Budaun. On that date, she has
conducted the medical examination of the
victim.
As
per
medical
report
the
prosecutix was aged about 19 years. In the
opinion of the doctor, the prosecutrix was
habitual of sexual intercourse. However,
doctor further opined that as no fresh sign
of rape was found, no opinion about rape
can be given.

11. PW-3, Hardwari deposed that on
the date of incident at about 6.00 in the
morning, while he was standing in front of
the house of Mahendra, he had seen the
prosecutrix in the company of accused,
Rajendra
Singh,
Sukkhi,
Ramkali,
Thakurani and Room Singh. He further
deposed that on enquiry, Sukkhi told him
that there is Katha in the house of her sonin-law and they are going there.

12. PW-4, Vijay deposed that on the
date of incident at about 6.00 in the
morning when he was coming from the
forest, in front of the house of Mahendra,
he saw that accused Sukkhi, Rajendra
Singh and Sukkhi's both wives Ram Kali
and Thakurani were going along with the
prosecutrix. Hardwari was also present
there. On enquiry by Hardwari, Sukkhi told
him that they are going to Maha Nagar to
hear Katha in the house of his son-in-law.

13. PW-5, Km. Pravesh is the victim
of the case. She has fully supported the
prosecution version. She deposed that on
the date of incident accused Ram Kali,
Thakurani, Rajendra and Room Singh came
to her house and requested her grand-father
to allow her to go with them to hear Katha,
which has been arranged in the house of
Room Singh at Maha Nagar. Her grandfather acceded to their request and allowed
her to go with them. However, when she
reached there, she noticed that no Katha
was organized there. The accused kept her
in the night in the house of Room Singh
under strict vigilance. Next day, she was
taken to an advocate at Budaun by the
accused Sukkhi, Room Singh, Gokil and
Rajendra, where she was forced to sign
certain papers on the point of pistol and
knife. Thereafter, she was taken to several
places and was kept under strict vigilance.
She further deposed that accused Rajendra
11 All. Rajendra Singh Vs. State
429
committed rape on her against her wishes
before he was arrested.

14. PW-6, Constable Anand Dhiani is
the scriber of the first information report. He
deposed that in January, 1984 he was posted
as Clerk-Constable at the police station
Ughaiti. On 07.01.1984 at about 12.30 PM,
he has written the report on the diction of the
first informant, Man Singh, which he proved
as (Ext. Ka-1). He also deposed that he made
necessary entries in the G.D., which he
proved as Ext. Ka-7.

15. The evidence of PW-7, Horam
Singh Tyagi has already been discussed
above.

16. After the closure of the prosecution
evidence, the statements of the accused were
recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C., in which
they denied the charges levelled against them
and claimed to be tried.

17. Learned Special Judge, (E.C. Act),
Budaun after hearing the learned counsel for
the parties and after scrutinizing and
assessing the evidence on record, convicted
and sentenced the appellant Rajendra Singh
to four years' rigorous imprisonment under
Section 366 IPC and acquitted the others
accused- persons.

18. Feeling aggrieved, the accusedappellant has come up before this Court in
appeal.

19. Heard Mr. Vinod Kumar Sharma,
learned counsel for the appellant, learned
Additional
Government
Advocate
representing the State and perused the
judgment and order as well as record of the
present case.

20. At the very outset, Mr. Vinod
Kumar Sharma, learned counsel for the
appellant, on instructions, stated that he does
not propose to challenge the impugned
judgement and order on its merits. He,
however, prayed for modification of the order
of the sentence for the period already
undergone by the appellant.

21. Learned Additional Government
Advocate representing the State has stated
that he has no objection if the Court
considers the mitigating circumstances.

22. Since the learned counsel for the
appellant has given up challenge to the
findings of conviction and there is ample
evidence
including
evidence
of
the
prosecutrix and eye-witness account to base
conviction, accordingly, the conviction of
the appellant for the aforesaid offence
stands affirmed.

23. However, on the quantum of
sentence, learned counsel for the appellant
has argued that the appellant is not a
previous convict, he is the sole breadearner of his family and that he is an old
man aged about 62 years.

24. Learned counsel for the appellant
further submits that the appellant was
awarded rigorous imprisonment of four
years and that he has already undergone 17
days before conviction and 21 days after
conviction, meaning thereby that he has
undergone about 38 days of the awarded
sentence.

25. While dealing with the quantum
of sentence, Hon'ble Supreme Court in
B.G. Goswami Vs. Delhi Administration,
1973 AIR 1457, held as under:
430 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

"Now the question of sentence is
always a difficult question, requiring as it
does, proper adjustment and balancing of
various considerations, which weigh with a
judicial mind in determining its appropriate
quantum in a given case. The main purpose
of the sentence broadly stated is that the
accused must realise that he has committed
an act, which is not only harmful to the
society of which he forms an integral part but
is also harmful to his own future, both as an
individual and as a member of the society.
Punishment is designed to protect society by
deterring potential offenders as also by
preventing the guilty party from repeating the
offence; it is also designed to reform the
offender and reclaim him as a law abiding
citizen for the good of the society as a whole.
Reformatory, deterrent and punitive aspects
of punishment thus play their due part in
judicial thinking while determining this
question. In modern civilized societies,
however, reformatory aspect is being given
somewhat greater importance. Too lenient as
well as too harsh sentences both lose their
efficaciousness. One does not deter and the
other may frustrate thereby making the
offender a hardened criminal. In the present
case, after weighing the considerations
already noticed by us and the fact that to
send the appellant back to jail now after 7
years of the annoy and harassment of these
proceedings when he is also going to lose his
job and to earn a living for himself and for
his family members and for those dependent
on him, we feel that it would meet the ends of
justice if we reduce the sentence of
imprisonment to that already undergone but
increase the sentence of fine from Rs- 200/- to
Rs. 400/-. Period of imprisonment in case of
default will remain the same."

26. In the case of Sattan Sahani vs
State of Bihar and others, 2002 (45) ACC
1134 (SC), accused were sentenced to three
years' rigorous imprisonment under section
326 IPC. In appeal, the Apex Court reduced
the sentence to the period already undergone
on the ground that the incident took place two
decades
back
and
parties
have
also
compromised.

27. In the case of Bankat and another
vs State of Maharshtra, 2004(50) ACC 953
(SC), accused were convicted under section
326 IPC and sentenced to one year
imprisonment with fine. The Apex Court
reduced the sentence to the period already
undergone on the ground that the parties
have settled the dispute outside the court
and 10 years have elapsed from the date of
incident.

28. In the case of Uthem Rajanna vs
State of Andhra Pradesh, 2005 (11) SCC
531, accused was convicted and sentenced
to six months' simple imprisonment under
section 304-A IPC along with fine of Rs.
500/-
and
three
months'
simple
imprisonment under section 338 IPC and
also to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- under section
337 IPC. The Apex Court in appeal has
reduced the sentence to the period already
undergone.

29. In the case of Neelam Bahal and
another vs State of Uttarakhand, 2010 (2)
SCC 229, the accused was convicted and
sentenced to undergo seven years' rigorous
imprisonment under section 307 IPC. The
Apex Court has convicted the accused
under section 326 IPC and reduced the
sentence to the period already undergone,
i.e. almost one year, on the ground that the
incident happened in the year 1987, when
the accused was of young age of 25 years.

30. In the present case, offence is
related to the incident dated 14.12.1983, i.e.
almost 37 years from date. Appellant was
11 All. Ram Shanker & Anr. Vs. State of U.P.
431
convicted by the trial court on 16.12.1986
and instant appeal is pending before this
Court since 1987. As such appellant has
already suffered the regours of protracted
trial and mental agony due to long
pendency of criminal proceedings against
him. Therefore, no useful purpose would be
served in sending appellant back to jail
after 37 years of the incident. Appellant has
re-built his roots in the society as a law
abiding person. In this background, it
would be unjust to uproot him at this
belated stage.

31. Considering the facts and
circumstances
of
the
case
and
the
substantive period already undergone by
the appellant in this case and the fact that
the appellant is an old person and that he
has realized the mistake committed by him
and is remorseful of his conduct to the
society to which he belongs and now he
wants to transform himself, I am of the
considered opinion that he should be given
a chance to reform himself and his better
contribution to the society to which he
belongs to.

32. Consequently, the conviction of
the appellant stands affirmed. The sentence
is modified and the period already
undergone by the appellant in this case, i.e.
38 days is taken as his substantive sentence
under Section 366 IPC.

33. The appeal stands partly allowed.

34. The appellant is on bail. His bail
bonds
are
cancelled
and
sureties
discharged.

35. Office is directed to transmit a
copy of this order to the learned Sessions
Judge, Budaun.

36. Office is also directed to send
back the record of the trial court
immediately.

37. It is directed that in case certified
copy of this judgment is not issued due to
COVID-19 pandemic, the copy of the
judgment downloaded from the official
website of the Allahabad High Court shall
be acted upon.
----------
(2020)11ILR A431
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 10.11.2020

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE VIRENDRA KUMAR
SRIVASTAVA, J.

Criminal Appeal No. 75 of 2002

Ram Shanker & Anr. ...Appellants
Versus
State of U.P. ...Respondent

Counsel for the Appellants:
Jai Singh Chauhan, Dilip Pandey, Shishir
Pradhan

Counsel for the Respondent:
Govt. Advocate

Criminal Law - Indian Penal Code,1860 -
Sections 498-A, 304B, 120B -. Dowry
Prohibition Act., 1961
-Section 3⁄4
-
Criminal
appeal
has
been
filed
against
conviction.

Evidence Law -Evidence Act, 1872 -
Section 113-B - Indian Penal Code,1860
Section 304-B, 498-A - Dowry Prohibition
Act., 1961 - Section 2 are discussed: -

Meaning of soon before death - does not
mean just before death or immediately before
death of the deceased. It was subjected to