VIJAY MOTIBHAI DALPATI RATHOD Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE challenge in this appeal is to the judgment and order dated 29/11/2006 rendered by the Ld. Addl. Sessions Judge and Presiding Officer, F.T.C. No. 2, City Sessions Court, Ahmedabad [for short 'the trial Court'] in Sessions Case No. 84/2006, whereby the appellant herein, who was original accused in the aforesaid sessions case, came to be convicted for the offences punishable under sections 363, 366 and 376 of the Indian Penal Code [for short 'IPC'] and he was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment [RI] for 3 years and fine of Rs.1,000/- and in default of payment of fine, RI for 3 months for the offence punishable under section 363 of the IPC, RI for 3 years and fine of Rs.1,000/- and in default of payment of fine, RI for 3 months for the offence punishable under section 366 of the IPC and RI for 10 years and fine of Rs.3,000/- and in default of payment of fine, RI for 6 months for the offence punishable under section 376 of the IPC. THE substantive sentence of imprisonment was ordered to run concurrently and the appellant accused was given benefit of set off. THE appellant, who is in jail since last about 7 years and 2 months applied through jail for temporary bail for 30 days on the ground of performing after-death ceremony of his grand father.

(2.) LD. Advocate Mr. A.C. Choksi representing the appellant submitted that the conviction order passed by the trial Court is not to be challenged, but only the appellant desires to pray for mercy so far as the sentence is concerned. Upon such submission being made, with the consent of LD. APP Ms. Shah representing the respondent State, the appeal was taken up for final disposal.

(3.) AT the outset, Mr. Choksi, learned advocate for the appellant submitted that so far as the age of the prosecutrix at the time of the incident and her date of birth being 21/2/1989 is concerned, there cannot be any dispute. Mr. Choksi submitted that considering the evidence of the prosecutrix exh. 7 together with the medical evidence on record, it is very difficult for the appellant even to assail the judgment of the Sessions Court whereby the Sessions Court came to the conclusion that the prosecution successfully proved its case beyond any reasonable doubt. Mr. Choksi, therefore, submitted that so far as the instant appeal is concerned, the appellant does not challenge the conviction recorded by the Sessions Court.