[2025:RJ-JD:55076]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 610/1996

1. Pradeep Alias Sandeep s/o Ramsingh (At present lodged in Central Jail, Jodhpur).

2.Smt.Janidevi w/o Ramsingh

3.Ramsingh s/o Amalak

4.Omprakash s/o Ramsingh

5.Jagdish s/o Ramsingh

6.Mahendrasingh s/o Ramsingh All by caste Bishnoi resident of Bhagat-ki-kothi Jodhpur.

----Appellant Versus State of Rajasthan.

----Respondent For Appellant(s) : Mr. B.S. Rathore For Respondent(s) : Mr. Rajesh Bhati ,AGA Mr. Ravindra Singh, AGA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FARJAND ALI

Judgment

Date of Conclusion of Arguments : 08/12/2025 Date on which Judgment is Reserved : 08/12/2025 Full Judgment or Operative Part : Full Judgment Date of Pronouncement : 28/01/2026 By the Court:-

1. By way of filing the instant appeal, the appellants assail the judgment dated 18.12.1996 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge No.1, Jodhpur in Sessions Case No.13/1996, whereby the appellants were convicted for the offences under Sections 366 and 368 IPC. Vide the impugned judgment, appellant Smt. Janidevi was convicted under Sections 366 and 368 IPC and was extended the benefit of the Probation of Offenders Act,1958 ; appellant Ramsingh was convicted under Section 366 IPC and granted the benefit of probation; appellant Pradeep alias Sandeep was convicted under Section 366 IPC and sentenced to undergo four years’ rigorous imprisonment along with a fine of ₹5,000/-, in default whereof to further undergo three months’ rigorous imprisonment; and appellants Omprakash, Jagdish and Mahendrasingh were convicted under Section 366 IPC and sentenced to undergo one year’s rigorous imprisonment. The impugned judgment and order of conviction and sentence are illegal, arbitrary and unsustainable in law and facts, and therefore deserve to be set aside.

Facts of the Case

2. The brief facts of the case are that an F.I.R. was lodged against the appellants at Police Station Jhanwar alleging that on 20.01.1996, when Sanjoo was on her way to school, the appellants namely Ramsingh, Omprakash, Jagdish, Pradeep and Mahendra arrived on a motorcycle and forcibly took her away. It was further alleged that thereafter Sanjoo was compelled to marry appellant Pradeep at Arya Samaj.

3. It is alleged that when Sanjoo and the appellants were present in the office of the Collector for registration of the said marriage, the parents of Sanjoo reached there and requested the Collector to hand over Sanjoo to her father, Dasooram. Consequently, Sanjoo was handed over to her father Dasooram.

4. On the basis of the aforesaid report, a case was registered under sections 366 and 368 I.P.C. and the police commenced investigation. Upon completion of investigation, a charge- sheet was filed before the Court of the Judicial Magistrate (District), Jodhpur, who thereafter committed the case to the Court of Sessions Judge, Jodhpur. The Sessions Judge, in turn, transferred the case for trial to the Court of the learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 1, Jodhpur.

5. The learned trial Court framed the necessary charges against the appellants and proceeded with the trial. During trial, the prosecution examined as many as twelve witnesses. Thereafter, statements of the accused-appellants were recorded under the relevant provisions of law. The defence examined two witnesses. After hearing the arguments of both sides, the learned trial Judge pronounced the judgment convicting the appellants for the offences as charged and awarded sentences accordingly.

6. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the learned trial Court, the present appeal has been preferred.

7. Heard learned counsels present for the parties and gone through the materials available on record.

Observations of the Court

8. Upon a careful and anxious consideration of the rival submissions, the impugned judgment, and the material available on record, this Court finds that the conviction of the appellants under Sectio