STATE OF MAHARASHTRA Vs. RAJENDRAJAWANMALGANDHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Leave granted.

(2.) Rajendra Jawanmal Gandhi (the accused) was convicted by the Sessions Judge, Satara for offences under Section 376, Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Section 57 of the Bombay Children Act, 1948 for having committed rape on a girl of eight years of age and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 7 years and to pay fine of Rs. 5,000/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months and for offence under Section 57 of the Bobmay Children Act, he was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and fine of Rs. 500/- and in default thereof rigorous imprisonment for one month. The substantive sentences were ordered to run concurrently. Maruti car in which the offence of rape was committed was ordered to be forfeited and confiscated to the State. The accused appealed to the Bombay High Court against his conviction and sentence. A Division Bench of the High Court by judgment dated October 4, 1994 upheld the conviction of the accused under Section 57 of the Bombay Children Act and upset the conviction under Section 376, IPC and instead convicted him for an offence under Section 354, IPC and sentenced him to suffer rigorous imprisonment which he had already undergone (which was 33 days in all) and to pay fine of Rs. 40,000/-. In default of payment of fine, the accused was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months. It was ordered that out of the fine so realised, a sum of Rs. 25,000/- shall be paid to the complainant who was father of the girl. For an offence under Section 57 of the Bombay Children Act, sentence was reduced to imprisonment already undergone and the accused was not required to undergo any separate imprisonment for this offence. The Maruti Car was ordered to be returned to the accused and the order of forfeiture and confiscation was set aside.

(3.) The matter did not end at that. Nagrik Kirti Samiti, Kolhapur which had been formed was agitated about the acquittal of the accused for an offence under Section 376, IPC. The Convener of the Samiti, Mr. P.D. Hankare represented to the State Government to file an appeal to this Court against the acquittal of the accused under Section 376, IPC. In the meantime, the accused had deposited the fine of Rs. 40,000/- as ordered by the High Court and out of this amount a sum of Rs. 25,000/- had been withdrawn by the father of the girl. Perhaps this was the consideration for the State Government not to file any appeal in the Supreme Court. Since there was no response from the State Government, Mr. P. D. Hankare, Convener of the Nagarik Kirti Samiti, Kolhapur approached this Court. He was granted permission to file special leave petition against the conviction and sentence on the accused by the High Court and as aforementioned, after notice of this appeal was served upon the State of Maharashtra and the accused, both filed separate appeals in this Court. While the State of Maharashtra filed appeal against the conviction and sentence of the accused by the High Court praying for his conviction under Section 376, IPC and for enhancement of his sentence of minimum of 10 years, the accused filed appeal against his very conviction and sentence under Section 354, IPC and 57 of the Bombay Children Act,