YAD RAM Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the parties. This criminal appeal is directed against the judgment dated 19-8-1983 passed by Additional Sessions Judge. Bharatpur in Sessions Case No. 24/83 whereby he found the appellant guilty for the offence under Sec. 376 Penal Code and sentenced him to five years RI with fine of Rs. 500.00 (In default, to further undergo six months RI).

(2.) The prosecution case against the appellant is that he committed rape with Ku. Vimla, a girl of 10 years old, on 21-1-1983. The case of the prosecution has been fully proved not only by oral evidence but by documentary evidence also. In these circumstances the learned counsel for the appellant submits that he does not want to assail the finding of the conviction recorded by the learned trial Court. He merely submits that at the time of incident the appellant was less than 16 years, and in this connection a certificate was produced from the side of the defence in order to show that at the time of incident the appellant was of 16 years. Moreover, D.W. 1 (Prem Chand) has been examined to prove the entry of date of birth in the school register and who has categorically stated that as per the entry in the Schools register the age of the appellant on the date of incident was 16 years. The counsel, therefore, submits that looking to the age of the appellant, his sentence be reduced. In view of the School certificate and the statement of D.W. 1, it cannot be disputed that on the date of incident the age of the appellant was 15 years and one month. So looking to the tendered age of the appellant I am also of the opinion that the learned trial Court while passing the sentence did not consider this aspect of the case and took a harsh view in passing the sentence against the appellant. In the case of Jagdish Vs. State of Rajasthan (1988 RCC page 529) this Court, in the similar circumstance, reduced the sentence of the accused holding him guilty for the offence under Sec. 376 Penal Code and passed the sentence for the period of already undergone by the accused. Similar view has also been taken in the case reported in 1982 Cr.L.R. page 259. So while following the principles laid down in the cases cited above, I am also of the opinion that looking to the age of the appellant it will meet the ends of justice if the sentence of the appellant is reduced for the period already undergone by him. The appellant remained in jail for about five months.

(3.) Consequently, this appeal is, therefore, partly allowed and the conviction of the appellant is maintained but his sentence is reduced for the period already undergone by him. The appellant is on bail and need not surrender. His bail bonds stand cancelled. Order accordingly.