RASIKBHAI SUKARBHAI VASAVA Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) All these appeals are preferred against the judgment and order dated 21.10.2011 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Narmada at Rajpipla, in Sessions Case Nos.31 and 35 of 2011, whereby the accused were convicted for offences punishable under Sections 342, 376 (2) (G) and 506 (2) read with Section 114 of the Indian Penal Code (for short, "IPC"). For the offence punishable under Section 376 (2) (G) read with Section 114 of IPC, the accused were ordered to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs.5,000/- and, in default of payment of fine, the accused were ordered to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for one year. For the offence punishable under Section 342 read with Section 114 of IPC, the accused were ordered to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/- and, in default of payment of fine, the accused were ordered to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for one month. For the offence punishable under Section 506 (2) read with Section 114 of IPC, the accused were ordered to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years and to pay fine of Rs.2,000/- and, in default of payment of fine, the accused were ordered to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for two months. The accused were also ordered to pay Rs.1,00,000/- towards compensation to the victim. All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently.

(2.) The facts in brief giving rise to the filing of present appeal are as under:-

(3.) At the time of hearing of these appeals, Mr.Ramnandan Singh, Ms.Sadhna Sagar and Mr.Gajendra Baghel, learned advocates for the appellants-original accused have taken us through the evidence and tried to establish that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove its case against the appellants. It is submitted that there is no eye witness to the incident and there is no substantive piece of evidence connecting the accused with the offence. It is submitted that the accused are wrongly convicted by the trial Court. However, after arguing the matter at some length, it is fairly conceded that in view of the medical evidence and statements of the victim, her friend and her uncle, though the offence against the accused can be said to have been proved, they are arguing only on the quantum of punishment. It is submitted that all the accused are very young and if the sentence imposed upon them is maintained, their future will be ruined. It is also submitted that the accused are not hardcore criminals and they do not have any antecedents. It is submitted that though the offence in question is a serious one, considering the future of the appellants-accused, this Court may show some leniency to them and the sentence of life imprisonment imposed upon them may be converted to any other appropriate punishment. It is, therefore, prayed that considering all these circumstances, sentence imposed upon the accused may be reduced and some lesser punishment may be imposed.