HIMAT POPATLAL RAVAL Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Admit. Mr. J. U. Mehta PP waives service on behalf of the State. Mr. A. H. Mehta the learned advocate for the appellant -accused has confined his arguments only with regard to sentence and has not raised any contention against the conviction.

(2.) The appellant-accused has been convicted for the offences punishable under sec. 366 and 376 of the Indian Penal Code in Sessions Case No. 53 of 1982 and has been sentenced to undergo R. I. for three years on each count and the substantive sentence of imprisonment impressed on the accused on each count is ordered to run concurrently. The learned Sessions Judge Surendranagar declined to take a lenient view of the matter probably on the ground that the virginity of the prosecutrix has been affected permanently and her reputation has been tarnished for the whole life. This is bound to happen in any rape case. The circumstances of the case clearly show that both the accused as well as the prosecutrix are of immature age and the prosecutrix used to meet the accused often and on. She willingly participated to elopement from the house (at village Chotila) and well to Ahmedabad and then to Surendranagar. There she stayed with the accused for about 8 days. Of course the age of the prosecutrix being less than 16 years (to be precise 15 years 5 months and 5 days on the date of incident) her consent cannot be a defence but this factor may certainly be taken into consideration while imposing sentence. The accused is also of immature age (i.e. around 21 years of age). In immaturity if the accused has been led away and if he has when to temptation he should not be treated like a sex-maniac.

(3.) As regards the age of the prosecutrix is concerned it does not appear that the prosecutrix has stated on oath in an affidavit sworn by her before the Mamlatdar that she was aged about 20. This fact has been deposed to by the Mamlatdar who has been examined in the case. Thus the girl might be appearing to be of more than 18 years of age. But as the evidence stands it is proved that on the date of incident she had crossed the age of 15 years and had not completed 16 years of age on the date of the incident.