STATE OF GUJARAT Vs. JAYDIP DAMJIBHAI CHAVDA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Feeling Aggrieved And Dissatisfied With The impugned judgment and order passed by the learned Additional City Sessions Judge, Court No.13, Ahmedabad, passed in Sessions Case No.122 of 2009 by which while convicting the original accused for the offence under Sections 376, 377 and 506(2) of the Indian Penal Code the learned trial Court has imposed the sentence of only three and half years for the offence under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code with fine of Rs.1,000/ and in default to undergo further 03 months R.I. and has imposed the sentence of 03 years R.I. with fine of Rs.500/ and in default to undergo further 02 months R.I. for the offence under Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code and has sentenced to undergo 01 year R.I. with fine of Rs.250/ and in default to undergo further 15 days R.I. for the offence under Section 506(2) of the Indian Penal Code, the State has preferred the present Appeal for enhancement of the punishment/sentence imposed by the learned trial Court, imposed while convicting the original accused for the offence under Sections 376, 377 and 506(2) of the Indian Penal Code.

(2.) At The Outset, It Is Required To Be Noted that at the time of incident both the prosecutrix were aged less than 16 years of age. At the time of commission of the offence the accused was aged 38 years of age. It has also come on record that at the time of commission of the offence accused was stepfather of one of the victim/prosecutrix. That by impugned judgment and order the learned trial Court on appreciation of evidence has as such convicted the accused for the offence under Sections 376, 377 and 506(2) of the Indian Penal Code. The original accused has not challenged his conviction by the learned trial Court for the offence under Sections 376, 377 and 506(2) of the Indian Penal Code. Therefore, the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned trial Court convicting the original accused for the aforesaid offences has attained the finality. Under the circumstances, now what is required to be considered by this Court in the present Appeal is whether in the facts and circumstances of the case and while convicting the original accused for the offence under Sections 376, 377 and 506(2) of the Indian Penal Code the learned trial Court is justified in imposing the sentence less than the minimum which is provided under the Act for the offence under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code and whether the learned trial Court is justified in awarding the sentence of three and half years R.I. only for the offence under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code and three years for the offence under Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code ? Another question which is paused for consideration of this Court is whether the learned trial Court has given adequate and cogent reasons while awarding the sentence less than the minimum provided under Section 376 of Indian Penal Code ?

(3.) Shri Mitesh Amin, Learned Public Prosecutor appearing with Shri H.S.Soni, learned APP has vehemently submitted that in the facts and circumstances of the case the learned trial Court has materially erred in awarding the sentence which is less than the minimum provided under Section 376 of Indian Penal Code. It is submitted that as such the learned trial Court has convicted the original accused for the offence under Sections 376, 377 and 506(2) of the Indian Penal Code. It is vehemently submitted that while convicting the accused for the aforesaid offence the sentence which is imposed by the learned trial Court is inadequate and not commensurate with the offence which is held to have been committed by the accused.