STATE OF GUJARAT Vs. RAVIBHAI SANTOSHBHAI BISOI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned 6th (Ad-hoc) Additional Sessions Judge, Surat (hereinafter referred to as "the trial Court") in Sessions Case No.31/2012 by which the learned trial Court while convicting the original accused under Sections 376(f), 363 and 366 of the Indian Penal Code ('IPC' for short) has imposed the sentence of 10 years Rigorous Imprisonment with a fine of Rs.10,000/- and in default to further undergo Rigorous Imprisonment of three months for the offence punishable under Section 376(2)(f) of the IPC and has sentenced to undergo 3 years Rigorous Imprisonment with a fine of Rs.5000/- and in default to undergo further one month Rigorous Imprisonment for the offence punishable under Section 363 of the IPC and has sentenced to undergo 3 years Rigorous Imprisonment with fine of Rs.5000/- and in default to undergo further one month Rigorous Imprisonment for the offence punishable under Section 366 of the IPC, State has preferred the present Appeal for enhancement of the sentence imposed by the learned trial Court while convicting the original accused under Sections 376(f), 363 and 366 of the IPC.

(2.) At the outset it is required to be noted that so far as the impugned judgment and order of conviction passed by the learned trial Court convicting the original accused for the offences punishable under Sections 376(f), 363 and 366 of the IPC is concerned, the same has attained finality so far as the original accused is concerned as the original accused has not challenged the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned trial Court, and therefore, the question posed for the consideration of this Court is, whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned trial Court is justified in imposing the aforesaid sentence while convicting the original accused for the offences punishable under Sections 376(f), 363 and 366 of the IPC

(3.) Shri K.P. Raval, learned APP appearing on behalf of the State has vehemently submitted that the sentence imposed by the learned trial Court while convicting the original accused for the offence punishable under Section 376(2)(f) of the IPC can be said to be disproportionate to the gravity of the offence committed by the original accused. It is submitted that while imposing the sentence upon the original accused for the offences punishable under Sections 376(f), 363 and 366 of the IPC the learned trial Court has not properly appreciated the fact that the victim was aged about 7 years only. It is submitted that therefore looking to the nature of the offence and the seriousness of the crime committed by the original accused and that too on the girl aged about 7 years the learned trial Court ought to have imposed maximum punishment upon the original accused provided under Sections 376(f), 363 and 366 of the IPC.