MAHAVIR HARISHBHAI MOR Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Both these appeals arise out of the same judgment and order dated 17-1-2012 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Surat, in Sessions Case No.238 of 2009 whereby the original accused was convicted and sentenced to undergo RI for three years with fine of Rs.500/-, in default, to suffer further SI for three months for the offence punishable under section 363 of Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as "IPC" for short), RI for five years with fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default, to suffer further SI for six months for the offence punishable under section 366 of IPC and RI for seven years with fine of Rs.1,500/-, in default, to suffer further SI for one year for the offence punishable under section 376 of IPC. All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. Criminal Appeal No.261 of 2012 has been preferred by the original accused against his conviction and sentence while Criminal Appeal No.284 of 2012 has been preferred by the State for enhancement of sentence.

(2.) Before proceeding with the appeals, learned advocate, Mr.Pravin Gondaliya, for the original accused submitted that the original accused has already undergone more than three years of sentence. He further contended that the original accused got married with the victim on 8-1-2014. Marriage registration certificate dated 13-1-2014 issued by Marriage Registrar and Chief Officer, Amreli Nagarpalika, along with affidavits affirmed by the victim as produced by the learned advocate, Mr.Gondaliya, is ordered to be taken on record.

(3.) We have verified the marriage certificate as well as the affidavits of the victim. It prima facie appears from the same that both the accused as well as the victim are happily married. As per the xerox copy of the Adhar Card, victim is born on 9-4-1995. It appears that the accused has already undergone substantial period of more than three years of sentence. In view of aforesaid facts, keeping in mind the subsequent developments, if any adverse orders are passed now, it will affect the victim adversely in her marriage life in future. In that view of the matter, if the sentence already undergone by the accused is treated as the sufficient sentence, it will be in the interest of justice and will be for the better family life of the victim with the accused. Hence, the impugned judgment and order of conviction is required to be confirmed but the sentence imposed on the accused is required to be reduced to the sentence he has already undergone in jail by modifying the impugned judgment and order. Therefore, Criminal Appeal No.261 of 2012 preferred by the accused is required to be partly allowed while Criminal Appeal No.284 of 2012 filed by the State is required to be dismissed.