Back
HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN (JODHPUR BENCH)
MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR GARG, J
Kailash Chandra – Appellant
Versus
State – Respondent
Judgment :
1. None appears on behalf of the petitioner even in the second round, therefore, learned counsel Mr. Kuldeep Sharma is appointed as amicus curiae in this matter. The remuneration to the amicus curiae shall be paid by Rajasthan State Legal Services Authority, Jodhpur.
2. Heard.
3. Instant criminal appeal has been filed by the appellant against the judgment dated 08.07.2013 passed by learned Special Judge, SC/ST Act Cases, District Bhilwara in Sessions Case No.16/2008 by which the learned Judge convicted and sentenced the appellant as under :
| Offence | Sentence | Fine | Sentence in default of fine |
| 341 IPC | 1 month S.I. | ||
| 323 IPC | 3 months’ S.I. | - | - |
| 448 IPC | 3 months’ S.I. | - | - |
| 354 IPC | 2 years’ R.I. | Rs.2,000/- | 6 months’ S.I. |
4. All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently and the period spent in judicial custody shall be adjusted in the original imprisonment.
5. Brief facts of the case are that on 24.03.2008, complainant Sugna Meena submitted a written report at Arakshi Kendra Pander alleging that at about 7:30 PM she went to barn to feed her cattle at that time the accused Kailash came there and molested & assaulted her. When her husband came there and intervened, he assaulted him too. On this report,
The court upheld the conviction but reduced the sentence to the period already served, considering the duration of trial and mental suffering.
The court has the discretion to consider the time elapsed since the incident and adjust the sentence accordingly, while also providing for compensation to the victim under Section 357 of Cr.P.C.
The absence of evidence for abusive language led to acquittal under the SC/ST Act, while the sentence under IPC was reduced to time already served due to prolonged trial.
The court may reduce a sentence to the period already served, considering the time spent in incarceration and the circumstances of the case.
The court clarified that intent to kill is essential for murder charges, finding that lack of specific intent warranted a conviction under culpable homicide instead.
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
