STATE OF CHHATTISGARH Vs. SANJAY KUMAR CHOUHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The State of Chhattisgarh - appellant herein, has preferred this appeal under Sec. 377 of the CrPC questioning the impugned judgment to the extent of sentence awarded to the respondent herein, rather seeking enhancement of the sentence awarded to him on the ground that it is inadequate sentence awarded by the learned Additional Sessions Judge being less than the minimum sentence prescribed for the offence in question, while convicting the respondent herein under Sec. 376 read with Sec. 511 of the IPC on the following factual backdrop.

(2.) The respondent herein was charge-sheeted for offence under Sec. 376 read with Sec. 511 of the IPC for attempting to commit rape with a minor victim aged about 4 years on 10-9- 2011 at Gerwaghat Chowki, CSEB, Korba and thereafter, on 13- 8-2012, charge was also framed for the offence under Sec. 376 read with Sec. 511 of the IPC, [not for offence under Sec. 376(2)(f) read with Sec. 511 of the IPC] and he was tried for the aforesaid offence. After full-dressed trial, the learned Additional Sessions Judge convicted the respondent for offence under Sec. 376 read with Sec. 511 of the IPC and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000.00, in default of payment to fine to further undergo additional rigorous imprisonment for three months. The learned trial Court has also recorded special reasons in paragraph 18 of the judgment while sentencing the respondent as required under the proviso to sub-sec. (1) of Sec. 376 of the IPC to which the appellant herein has taken exception stating that the sentence awarded to the respondent herein is not in accordance with law, particularly as provided in Sec. 376(1) of the IPC.

(3.) Mr. Sudeep Verma, learned Deputy Government Advocate appearing on behalf of the State of Chhattisgarh / appellant, would submit that the trial Court has failed to consider that the age of the victim was below 12 years at the time of commission of offence, hence, the act of the respondent would come under Sec. 376(2)(f) of the IPC which is punishable with a minimum term of imprisonment for ten years and by virtue of Sec. 511 of the IPC, if the attempt has been proved, even in that case, minimum sentence would be five years, as such, the sentence awarded be enhanced by two years, as three years has already been awarded to the respondent. Therefore, the appeal be allowed in light of Sec. 376(2)(f) read with Sec. 511 of the IPC and the respondent be sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for five years.