SUKHWINDER SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against the judgment of the High Court, dated 23/5/1996, dismissing the appeal filed by the appellant against his conviction and sentence for an offence under Sections 363/366 and 376 IPC, as recorded by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Patiala. The High Court has noticed that the prosecutrix was a consenting party to the act of sexual intercourse and that she had willingly left her parents' house to be with the appellant. She was, however, found to be "not more than 16 years of age" and on that account, the High Court upheld the conviction of the appellant.

(2.) During the pendency of the proceedings in the High Court, the prosecutrix and the appellant appear to have compromised and a compromise petition was duly filed in the Court. In the compromise petition, the prosecutrix has stated that she and the appellant belonged to neighboring villages and she had since got married and that "she does not want that she should be put to further ignominy on account of this episode. She wants to put an end to the matter and settle happily with her husband".

(3.) The learned Single Judge of the High Court noticed the compromise as also the attendant facts of the case i. e. that the prosecutrix was a consenting party, but expressed helplessness in the matter of awarding of sentence on the ground that under Section 376 IPC, the sentence to be awarded could not be less than seven years. It appears that the High Court overlooked the proviso to Section 376 IPC, which reads thus: