STATE BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, MADRAS Vs. VEERAMUTHU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The State has preferred this appeal against the sentence imposed on the accused/respondent after having held him guilty of committing offence under Sec. 376 r/w 511 I.P.C. in S.C. No. 36 of 1990. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, Pudukkottai convicted and sentenced the accused to undergo R.I. for two years and also to pay a fine of Rs. 1000.00 in default to undergo R.I. for 4 months. The State seeks enhancement of the sentence.

(2.) The facts briefly stated are that the accused stood charged for having committed rape on a girl aged about 5 years. The learned Sessions Judge came to the conclusion that offence under Sec. 376 I.P.C. was not proved but there is evidence to hold that the accused had attempted to commit rape and thus held him guilty under Sec. 376 r/w 511 I.P.C. and convicted and sentence him as stated above. The State has preferred this appeal for enhancement of punishment on the ground that as per the provisions of Sec. 376 (2) (f) I.P.C. the minimum sentence prescribed is 10 years. When this Sec. is read along with Sec. 511 I.P.C., the minimum sentence awardable is 5 years. The learned Counsel for the petitioner pointed out that as per the proviso to this Sec. the Court has discretion to award lesser sentence than the minimum sentence if certain extenuating circumstances are made out. Learned Counsel for the respondent pointed out that the trial Judge has given reasons for awarding lesser sentence. The accused/respondent was aged about 18 years at the time of commission of the offence and the learned Judge thought it fit to award lesser sentence to allow him to reform himself and lead a decent life.

(3.) Apart from this aspect, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent pointed out that the Assistant Sessions Judge has passid the Judgment on 12.12.1991, but the respondent has preferred an appeal in C.A. No. 3 of 1992 to the Sessions Court questioning the quantum of sentence imposed on him and the Sessions Judge had also reduced the sentence to 11/2 years as per the judgment in Crl.A. No. 3 of 1992, dated 31.10.1994. Mr. Shanmugavelayutham, learned Counsel for the respondent pointed out that in view of the Sessions Judge having revised the judgment of the trial Court, this appeal would not lie as this appeal had not been preferred against the sentence passed by the learned Sessions Judge in the appeal proceedings.