STATE OF GUJARAT Vs. RAFIQSHA ISMAILSHA SHAH FAKIR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present appeal, under section 377 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for brevity, 'the Code') is directed against the judgment and order dated 07/03/2008 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, 2nd Fast Track Court, Amreli in Sessions Case No. 103 of 2006, whereby the respondent herein - original accused has been convicted for the offence punishable under Sections 363 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for brevity, 'the IPC') and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and a fine of Rs. 1,000/ - and in default of payment of fine, to undergo, further simple imprisonment for two months; for the offence punishable under Section 366 of the IPC, he was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for four years and a fine of Rs. 2,000/ - and in default of payment of fine, to undergo, further simple imprisonment for four months and for the offence punishable under Section 376 of the IPC, he was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years and a fine of Rs. 3,000/ - and in default of payment of fine, to undergo, further simple imprisonment for four months. All the sentences were to run concurrently.

(2.) BRIEF facts of the prosecution case are that 20 days prior to 15/08/2006, the respondent herein - original accused, together with two unknown persons, abducted the victim without her consent and/or the consent of her parents, with an intention to forcefully marry her and/or rape her and thereby, committed the alleged offence, for which a complaint came to be lodged against him.

(3.) ON the other hand, learned advocate Mr. Oza for the respondent - original accused, fairly conceded that the accused has not preferred any appeal against conviction. However, he submitted that the respondent - accused has already undergone the sentence imposed upon him by the trial Court and accordingly he is at large. He also submitted that the financial condition of the accused is very weak and he could pay the fine imposed upon him by the trial Court only in 2011. He further submitted that the respondent - accused has settled in life and is a responsible person and accordingly, in the given facts and circumstances, he requested that when the respondent - accused has already undergone the sentence imposed by the trial Court, this Court may not interfere in the appeal.