[2026:RJ-JP:3114] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 174/1999 Ramprasad son of Shri Rajranga, resident of Old Tehsil Malpura, District Tonk ----Appellant Versus State of Rajasthan ----Respondent For Appellant(s) : Mr. Nitin Jain with Mr. Vaibhav Pareek & Ms. Kriti Kalwatia For Respondent(s) : Mr. Shree Ram Dhakar, PP HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SANGEETA SHARMA Order 23/01/2026 1. By way of the instant S.B. Criminal Appeal No.174/1999 under Section 374 (2) of Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred as ‘Cr.P.C.’), a challenge has been made to the judgment and order dated 25.02.1999 passed by the learned Additional Session Judge, Malpura, District Tonk, in Sessions Case No.23/97, whereby the accused-appellant was convicted under Section 366 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred as ‘IPC’) and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years along with a fine of Rs.1,000/- . 2. Factual matrix of this case are that on 05.03.1997, an FIR was lodged at Police Station, Malpura, by one Govind Narain, alleging that his daughter, a student of Senior Higher Secondary School, had been abducted by the accused-appellant on 28.02.1997 to compel her to marry. On this basis, a case under [2026:RJ-JP:3114] (2 of 4) [CRLA-174/1999] Sections 363 and 366 of IPC was registered. Subsequently, during investigation, Section 376 of IPC was added and upon completion of investigation charge-sheet under Section 363, 366 and 376 of IPC was submitted against the accused-appellant. 3. The learned Trial Court framed charges against the accused- appellant under Sections 366, 376 of IPC. Upon the accused- appellant denying the guilt, the trial commenced. During the course of trial, the prosecution examined as many as 8 witnesses and exhibited 15 documents. Thereafter, the accused was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. where he denied the questions put to him and no defence evidence was adduced. 4. Upon conclusion of trial, the learned Trial Court vide it’s impugned judgment dated 25.02.1999, convicted and sentenced the accused-appellant for the offence under Section 366 of IPC, as mentioned above. 5. Being aggrieved by the conviction and sentence, the accused- appellant has preferred this appeal. 6. During the course of hearing, learned counsel for the accused-appellant at the outset, submits that accused-appellant has already undergone imprisonment for some time and, on account of protracted litigation, has already suffered a lot of financial hardship and mental agony. He was also released on bail by this Court long back in the year 1999. Therefore, the ends of justice will be adequately met if he is not required to undergo further imprisonment to serve out the sentence passed against him, and the sentence of imprisonment should be reduced to the period already undergone by him. [2026:RJ-JP:3114] (3 of 4) [CRLA-174/1999] 7. Learned counsel for the appellant has placed reliance upon the judgments in the case of Suraj & Ors. vs State: (2015) SCC Online Raj 10034 and K. Prakash & Anr. vs State of Karnataka, (2021) 14 SCC 30. 8. Per contra, learned counsel for the State opposed the same and contended that the impugned judgment and order is just and proper, hence, there is no need to interfere with the impugned judgment. 9. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 10. Indisputably, the incident goes way back in the year 1997 and the accused-appellant has so far undergone a period of more than six weeks out of the total sentence of two years. He has also suffered mental agony and trauma of protracted trial and except this case no other criminal case has ever been registered against him as reflected in the criminal antecedent report of the appellant- accused, submitted by the learned Public Prosecutor that is taken on record. 11. Thus, in the facts and circumstances of the case, this court is of the view that the ends of justice would be served if the sentence of imprisonment is reduced to the period already undergone by the accused-appellant. 12. Accordingly, the present criminal appeal is partly allowed. While upholding the conviction of the accused-appellant for the offence under Section 366 of IPC, the sentence awarded for the aforesaid offence is hereby reduced to the period already undergone. The fine as imposed by the learned Trial Court is hereby upheld and one month time is granted to deposit the fine [2026:RJ-JP:3114] (4 of 4) [CRLA-174/1999] amount before the trial Court. In default of payment of fine, accused-appellant shall undergo one month simple imprisonment. if fine has already been deposited by the accused-appellant, the same shall be adjusted. 13. Accused-appellant is on bail, he need not surrender. His bail bonds stands discharged. 14. All pending application(s), if any, stand disposed of. 15. Record of the Trial Court be sent back forthwith. (SANGEETA SHARMA),J HEENA