STATE OF A P Vs. TE JAVATH HANJARYA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a suo motu taken up Criminal Appeal against the order of sentence passed against the accused in Sessions Case No. 201 of 1990 on 14-8-1992 by the Assistant Sessions Judge, Kothagudem.

(2.) The accused was tried for the offenceof rape of P.W.I on 13-6-1990at3 p.m. near Ontibodu vorre on the outslirts of Bethampudi village within the limits of Tekulapally police station in Khammam district. The plea of accused was one of denial. The trial Court accepted the evidence of P.W.I, the prosecutrix, in view of the corroboration by the medical evidence of P.W.8 and also circumstantial evidence of P.Ws. 2 to 6, and convicted the accused for the offence punishable under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code. With regard to the sentence, the accused sought for merecy on grounds of poverty and old age of his parents. The learned trial Judge, sentenced the accused to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of five years and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- for the offence punishable under Section376 of the Indian Penal Code. Any adequate and special reasons for awarding the lesser sentence were not given except stating that the facts and circumstances were taken into consideration.

(3.) It is clear from Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code that a person convicted of the said offence shall be punished with imprisonment of not less than seven years and in case, if lesser punishment is awarded, it is the duty of the trial Court to give adequate and special reasons for so doing. In the instant case, it is quite apparent that no reasons were given let alone adequate and special reasons for awarding lesser imprisonment. The trial Judge committed an error in not awarding minimum sentence of seven years.