VALJIBHAI BALUBHAI CHAUHAN Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appeal is preferred from the judgment dated 30. 8. 2005 of Fast Track Court, Jamnagar, wherein the appellant has been convicted for the offences punishable under sections 363, 366 and 376 of IPC and sentenced to, in all, seven years of rigorous imprisonment and total Rs. 5000/- of fine. Arguing the appeal, learned counsel Ms. Meeta Panchal, appearing with Ms. Krishna Mishra, submitted at the outset that the appeal was restricted to reducing the sentence in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the prosecutrix having willingly run away with the appellant and having lived with the appellant at the relevant time for about a week. Learned counsel relied upon judgments of the Supreme Court in State of Punjab v. Rakesh Kumar [2008 (12) SCALE 95]; Sukhwinder Singh v. State of Punjab [ (2000) 9 SCC 204] and State of M. P. v. Sunil [air 2006 SC 627] in support of her contention. It was submitted that the appellant as well as the prosecutrix were young and immature at the time of the offence and, due to extremely poor condition of the appellant, he was not in a position to pay the fine.

(2.) LEARNED A. P. P. pointed out from the jail record that the appellant was reported to be now aged 27 and he has already undergone rigorous imprisonment for six years and three months, if the period of remission to which the appellant was entitled were counted. However, he may have to undergo two more years of imprisonment as he has not paid the fine.

(3.) UNDER the above circumstances, the appeal is partly allowed so as to modify the impugned order of sentence and substitute it with the order that the appellant shall stand sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for the period already undergone and there shall be no fine for the offences for which he is convicted. The appeal accordingly stands partly allowed and the appellant is ordered to be released from jail if he is not required to be detained in connection with any other case. Direct service.