(1.) Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Surat, in Sessions Case No.59 of 2012 (Old Sessions Case No.24 of 2010) dated 5.6.2013, by which, while convicting the respondent - original accused for the offence punishable under Section 376 (Chh) read with Section 511 of the Indian Penal Code, the learned trial Judge has imposed sentence of 5 years rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default, to undergo further one month rigorous imprisonment, the appellant - State has preferred present Appeal under Section 377 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for enhancement of sentence imposed by the learned trial Court.
(2.) At the outset, it is required to be noted that the impugned judgment and order of conviction passed by the learned trial Court convicting the respondent - original accused for the offence punishable under Section 376(Chh) read with Section 511 of Indian Penal Code, has attained finality as the same is not challenged by the respondent - accused and as such, he has already undergone sentence imposed by the learned trial Court, imposed by the impugned judgment and order. Therefore, only question posed for consideration of this Court is as to whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the sentence imposed by the learned trial Court, while convicting the original accused for the offences under Section 376 read with Section 511 of the Indian Penal Code, can be said to be just, proper and sufficient punishment in consonance with gravity of the offence
(3.) Ms. Moxa Thakkar, learned APP appearing on behalf of the appellant - State has vehemently submitted that the learned trial Court has committed grave error in awarding sentence of 5 years rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default, to undergo further one month rigorous imprisonment, while convicting the original accused for the offences under Section 376 (Chh) read with Section 511 of the Indian Penal Code.