Back
MAHENDAR KUMAR GOYAL
Kamal S/o Kan Singh – Appellant
Versus
State of Rajasthan – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
1. This criminal appeal has been filed by the accused-appellant against the judgment dated 15.7.1987 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge No.1, Gangapur City (for brevity-‘the learned trial court’) in Sessions Case No.13/1986 whereby, he has been convicted and sentenced as under:
2. The relevant facts in brief are that the complainant Smt. Kamla submitted a written report (Ex.P3) on 29.10.1985 with the Police Station Gangapur City stating therein that at about 2.00 pm on 28.10.1985 when she had gone to her field to cut grass, the accused attempted to commit rape upon her. It was submitted that when she raised hue and cry, Smt. Chhoti, Smt. Dhan Bai and Prakash came running to rescue her on which the accused fled away.
3. The police after investigation filed charge sheet under Section 376/511 IPC against the appellant. The learned trial court framed charge under Section 376/511 IPC against the appellant who pleaded not guilty and demanded trial.
4. The learned trial court vide its judgment dated 15.7.1987 convicted and sentence
IN CASES OF DELAY IN LODGING FIR AND ABSENCE OF INJURY ON THE PROSECUTRIX, THE COURT MAY MODIFY THE SENTENCE TO THE PERIOD ALREADY UNDERGONE BY THE ACCUSED.
The court considered the lack of medical evidence and shaky eyewitness testimony in allowing the appellant's prayer to substitute the sentence awarded with the period already undergone.
The main legal point established is the court's discretion to impose a sentence of imprisonment for a term of less than seven years for adequate and special reasons, as mentioned in the proviso of Se....
The court established that intent coupled with action constitutes an attempt to commit an offence, underscoring the need to distinguish between mere intention and substantive actions towards a crime.
The court applied sentencing principles of deterrence and correction, considering medical evidence and discrepancies in the prosecution's story to reduce the appellant's sentence.
The court applied the principles of deterrence and correction in sentencing the appellant under Section 376 IPC, considering the period already undergone by the appellant.
The court maintained that actions by the accused demonstrated intent to commit rape, establishing a clear distinction between mere indecent assault and attempted rape.
The court confirmed the conviction for rape but modified the sentence to 7 and 10 years based on the appellant's circumstances and procedural considerations, ensuring compliance with legal standards.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
