KARTIKBHAI LALJIBHAI GHODIYA PATEL Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Learned counsel for the appellant argued the matter only on the sentence. He also relied upon below mentioned authorities in support of his submission that the appellant was in love with the prosecutrix, and that in such cases, the courts have been taking lenient view. It is argued that he was and he was hardly aged 21 years and the offence was committed while in his youth:

(2.) It was urged that a fine of Rs.37,000/- imposed by the trial court has already been paid by him, out of which, Rs.25,000/- has been received by the victim as compensation. The argument is that the victim is now well settled in her family, and that looking to the age and the background in which the offence was committed, the court may show leniency, and reduce the sentence to the one already undergone.

(3.) Learned A.P.P. has vehemently opposed the above arguments primarily with a contention that the manner in which the offence was committed was as gruesome as can be. It was argued that the prosecutrix was not willing to keep any relations with the appellant, and it was misconceived for him to propagate love affair and then to throw her into the river, and rape her for as many as three times during the period of one night. He argued that the cases relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellant can be of no assistance to him in view of the fact that none of them were dealing with a gruesome offence like the present one.