ABDUL REHMAN Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN (RAJASTHAN)

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal has been filed by the appellant against the judgment dated 27.2.1988 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Bhilwara in Sessions Case No. 39/87 convicting the appellant under Section 363 I.P.C. and sentencing him to one year's rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 500/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo one month's imprisonment.

(2.) The submission of the learned counsel for the appellant in this appeal is confined to the fact that the age of the accused-appellant, as per charge-sheet submitted by the police, is 18 years. In the statement of the accused-appellant recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. the age has been given as 20 years on 24.3.1988. Consequently, the learned counsel for the appellant submits that as per the record available with the trial Court the age of the accused was below 21 years and the accused-appellant ought to have been dealt with the provisions of Section 360 Cr.P.C. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that failure on the part of the learned trial Court to deal with the accused-appellant under Section 360 Cr.P.C. is a violation of the provisions contained in Section 361 Cr.P.C. Learned counsel for the appellant further submits that in the facts and circumstances of the present case, particularly looking to the age of the accused-appellant and the fact that the incident is of the year 1987 and more than 17 years have passed, the parties have settled down. The accused-appellant is married and has his own family. The victim Mafiya, PW 2, as per her statement recorded in the Court Ex.D/1, is also married and living happily with her husband. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case learned counsel for the appellant submits that it is a fit case where the benefit of provisions of See. 360 Cr.P.C. be extended to the accused-appellant.

(3.) Learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the prayer made by the learned counsel for the appellant and submits that it was a serious offence where the minor was removed from the lawful guardianship of the father and it is not a fit case in which the accused-appellant should be given the benefit of Section 360 of Cr.P.C.