PRAKASH RAMJIBHAI MARWADI Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two appeals have been filed against a common judgment dated 28th September, 2005 delivered by the Addl. Sessions Judge, Court No. 7, Ahmedabad City, in Sessions Case No. 4 of 2005 and Sessions Case No. 78 of 2005. By virtue of the impugned judgment and order, the accused in Sessions Case No. 4 of 2005, Prakash Ramjibhai Marwadi, has been held guilty of the offences punishable under Sections 365, 342 and 376 read with Section 114 of the Indian Penal Code (for short 'IPC') and has been sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for 5 years for the offence under Section 365 of IPC and a fine of Rs. 3,000.00, in default to undergo Simple Imprisonment for 6 months, for the offence under Section 342, he has been sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for one year and a fine of Rs. 1,000.00, in default simple imprisonment for 3 months, for abetment of offence under Section 376 of IPC, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 5 years and a fine of Rs. 10,000.00 and in default, simple imprisonment for one year. It has been also ordered that the time spent in judicial custody be given as a set off. All substantive sentences are ordered to run concurrently.

(2.) So far as accused in Sessions Case No. 78 of 2005, Ramesh @ Vinod @ D.K Rodji @ Chaudhry @ Patel Shankarji @ Rajubhai Chaudhry-Patel (Kalal) is concerned, he has been held guilty of offences under Sections 328 and 376 of the IPC and has been sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for 5 years and a fine of Rs. 5,000.00, in default simple imprisonment for one year for the offence under Section 328, whereas for the offence under Section 376 of the IPC, he has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 10 years and a fine of Rs. 25,000.00, in default to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for one year. Substantive sentences are are ordered to run concurrently.

(3.) As observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Karnataka v. Puttaraja 2003 0 AIR(SCW) 6429, so as to see that name of the victim is not revealed, the affected party has been referred to as "Sthe victim" throughout the judgment.