Gopal Krishan Vyas, J. - (1.) The instant criminal appeal has been filed under Sec. 374(2) Cr.P.C. against the judgment dt 28.7.1997 passed by Special Judge for SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Cases, Sri Ganganagar in Cr. Case No. 65/1996 by which the learned trial Court convicted the accused appellant for offence under Sec. 354 IPC read with Sec. 3(i)(xi) of the SC/ST Act and for offence under Sec. 447 IPC. The following punishment was given to the appellant: JUDGEMENT_375_LAWS(RAJ)1_2015.htm At the threshold the learned counsel for the appellant submits that incident took place on 19.4.1995 upon the complaint made by Smt. Maya W/o Malkiat Singh in which it is stated by her that my husband is working as truck driver and the day on which occurrence took place my husband was out and I was sleeping in the house of my father. At that time, in the night at about 11 O' Clock Chhinder Singh came in the house and put his hands on my mouth and started abusing and left the house. The incident was reported by Smt. Maya to her father and brother, thereafter, the FIR was registered under Sec. 354 and 447 IPC and the learned trial Court after trial convicted the accused appellant for one year RI with fine of Rs. 2,000/ - for offence under Sec. 354 read with Sec. 3 (i)(xi) of the SC/ST Act and for offence under Sec. 447 a fine of Rs. 250/ - was imposed and in default of payment of fine to further undergo 15 days SI.
(2.) The learned counsel for the appellant at the threshold submitted that the appellant is not challenging the conviction for the aforesaid offence but submits that incident took place in the year 1995 and after near about 20 years in the interest of justice, his sentence awarded may be reduced to already undergone. In support of his contention, the learned counsel for the appellant invited my attention towards the judgment rendered by this Court at Jaipur Bench in S.B. Cr. Appeal No. 21 of 1990 : Man Singh v/s. State of Rajasthan decided on 8.5.2013 in which almost in identical circumstances the coordinate bench of this Court at Jaipur Bench reduced the sentence to already undergone, therefore, this appeal may also be partly allowed and sentence awarded to the appellant may be reduced to already undergone.
(3.) Per contra, the learned Public Prosecutor vehemently opposed the prayer and submits that appellant is not entitled for any leniency because he has committed an offence which is serious in nature.;