UMESH Vs. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By the present appeal, the appellant has put to challenge judgment and order dated 21.08.2014 in Sessions Trial No. 60/2012 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Khamgaon thereby convicting him for an offence punishable under Sections 376 (1) and 506 of the IPC and sentencing him to undergo R.I. for 7 years and also pay a fine of Rs.500/ in default to undergo R.I. for 3 months. This appeal was admitted on 11.09.2011 and record and proceedings were called in order to find out whether the applicant was entitled to bail. This Court, by order dated 11.11.2014 rejected bail application of the appellant and fixed the appeal for final hearing on 18.11.2014.

(2.) In support of the appeal, Mr. Kalwaghe, learned counsel for the appellant, vehemently argued that the finding of conviction recorded by the trial court for an offence punishable under Sections 376 (1) and 506 of the IPC is clearly illegal and, therefore, accused is entitled to acquittal. In the alternative, he submitted that the alleged offence is said to have taken place in or about July2011 as is clear from the deposition of prosecutrix Ku. S, who deposed that the incident of rape had taken place three years before recording of her deposition which was recorded on 05.07.2014. According to Mr. Kalwaghe, therefore, the incident of rape obviously took place before 18.05.2013 i.e. before the amendment to Section 376 IPC came into force. He, therefore, submitted that proviso to sub section (1) of Section 376 as it stood before the amendment has application in the instant case for reducing the sentence of imprisonment less than 7 years. He then invited my attention to the evidence of mother of the appellant so also of PW1Ku.S and submitted that there are special reasons reasons by way of evidence brought before the Court for reduction of sentence. He then submitted that the appellant is ready to provide an amount of Rs.1,00,000/ within a period of 8 weeks from his release from jail for being invested into the Fixed Deposit in the name of PW1Ku.S by way of compensation in that behalf. He submitted that the appellant has two daughters, one of 7 years and other of five years, wife and mother aged about 65 years to be maintained. In fact, the appellant is uncle of the prosecutrix Ku.S.

(3.) Per contra, learned A.P.P. for the respondentState vehemently supported the impugned order of conviction. The Learned A.P.P. vehemently opposed the proposal given by the learned counsel for the appellant for reduction of sentence and submitted that such a proposal cannot be accepted since the offence is of serious nature and no such offer can be accepted by this Court. Mr. Kalwaghe referred to the decision of the Supreme court in the case of Ram Kumar ..vs.. State of Haryana, 2006 4 SCC 347