KIRANKUMAR MULJIBHAI PARMAR Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant is original accused in Sessions Case No.32 of 2009 before the Sessions Court at Anand, wherein, by impugned judgment and order dated 4.9.2009, he has been convicted for committing offences under Sections 376 and 506(2) and ordered to undergo sentence of rigorous imprisonment for ten years with fine of Rs.1,000/ and to undergo one year of rigorous imprisonment in default of payment of fine. He is also convicted and ordered to undergo sentence for two years rigorous imprisonment with payment of fine of Rs.200/ with direction to undergo three months rigorous imprisonment in default of payment of fine so far as offence under Section 506(2) is concerned. However, Sessions Court has directed the accused to undergo both the sentences simultaneously, and therefore, in all petitioner has to undergo imprisonment for ten years.

(2.) HEARD Mr. R.D. Makwana, learned advocate for the appellant at length and Mr. K.L. Pandya, learned APP for respondent - State and perused the record in the form of paper book which includes depositions and documentary evidence proved before the trial Court by the prosecution and further statement of the accused before the trial Court under Section 313.

(3.) THE brief facts of the case are to the effect that on the date of incident i.e. 28.12.2008 at about 10.00 am when victim girl was at her house and when her parents had gone to attend some religious programme "Bhajan", the accused had been to their house and called her saying that "come to my house, I have some work". Since accused was nephew of neighbor of the victim and since they are knowing each other by face and when accused has called her saying that he has some work, the victim had gone to his house and stood near the house but at that time, accused has dragged her by catching her hand in the house, put a bunch of handkerchief in her mouth and shut the door from inside and then taken her to another room and then committed the offence of rape on her. The details about actual activity is not material to be reproduced in minute details since it is very well disclosed in the FIR, deposition of the victim as well as in the impugned judgment. However, the fact remains that there is categorical statement in her complaint as well as deposition by the victim about the acts committed by the accused which is nothing but an act of rape by force. Thereupon, a complaint was lodged on the next day and, therefore, there is no reason to disbelieve the story of the victim, both in the complaint and in her deposition. On perusal of over all evidence, it becomes clear that there is no substance in the appeal so as to either acquit the appellant or as fairly submitted by learned advocate Mr. Makwana that if accused is not acquitted at the earliest, sentence may be reduced to minimum seven years against ten years. However, there is no reason whatsoever which allows and permits this Court to reduce even the sentence to the minimum i.e. seven years instead of ten years, considering the evidence available on record.