MAHENDRA MURTIYAN MADRASI Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is a telling example of how the delay in hearing of a conviction appeal deprives a convict of his right to persuade the Court to reduce the sentence, if not the right to declare him as innocent, and thus render the right of appeal illusory. The appellant has already been released on 11.10.2002.

(2.) This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 11.10.1995 rendered by the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Jamnagar in Sessions Case No. 55 of 1995 convicting the appellant-accused of the offences punishable under Sections 363, 366, 366-A and 376 IPC and sentencing the appellant to undergo RI for 3 years and fine of Rs.5,000/- in default RI for one year for the offence punishable under Section 363 IPC; RI for 3 years and fine of Rs.5,000/- in default RI for one year for the offence punishable under Section 366-A IPC; and RI for 8 years and fine of Rs.10,000/- in default RI for 2 years for the offence punishable under Section 376 IPC. The learned Sessions Judge also directed that all the sentences shall run concurrently. The learned Sessions Judge further directed that compensation of Rs.15,000/shall be paid to victim Madhuben, if fine is recovered. The learned Sessions Judge, however, acquitted the appellant of the offence punishable under Section 380 read with Section 109 IPC.

(3.) By charge-sheet dated 8.9.1995, the appellant was charged with the aforesaid offences on the basis that when the appellant was residing at Mithapur, Taluka Okha, on 15.12.1994 at about 9 O'clock in the evening, the appellant had kidnapped a girl called Madhuben, aged 14 years, who was residing in the neighbourhood, from lawful guardianship of her father Ghela Vala without the consent of the said guardian. The appellant was further charged that Madhuben, daughter of Ghela Vala, was aged about 14 years and the appellant kidnapped her on the aforesaid date and time with intent that she may be forced or seduced to illicit intercourse or that the appellant knew it to be likely that Madhuben will be forced or seduced to illicit intercourse. The appellant was also charged that the appellant had committed rape on Madhuben, aged 14 years, without her consent and after inducing her to believe that the appellant will marry her, the appellant had committed rape on Madhuben twice at Ahmedabad and Baroda. The appellant was further charged with the offence of abetting Madhuben in committing theft of Rs.3,000/- from her house.