BIRJA Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant Birja has been convicted under Section 376 IPC and sentenced to seven years' R.I. and a fine of Rs. 1,000/ -and in default, six months further R.I. by the learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 1, Hanumangarh by his judgment dated 30 -10 -1982. He has, therefore, come up in appeal.

(2.) THE learned Counsel for the appellant has candidly stated before me that he would not challenge the conviction of the appellant but urged that in the circumstances of the case, the sentence awarded to the appellant, according to him, is excessive and harsh and, therefore, he only prays that it may be suitably reduced.

(3.) THE learned Additional Sessions Judge had after trial, convicted and sentenced the appellant has aforesaid. The contention of the learned Counsel, that the sentence awarded to the appellant in the circumstances of this case is excessive, appears to be not without substance. The prosecutrix Smt. Bimla has stated her age to be between 15 and 20 and the doctor has found her to be about 17 -1/2. The medical evidence always leaves a margin of about two years on either side. The accused appellant has given his age as nineteen. The doctor who had examined the accused, had also estimated his age to be about 20 years although the learned Additional Sessions Judge has estimated it at thirty. In the arrest memo, his age has been mentioned as twenty and, therefore, it can safely be concluded that the accused is a young boy of about 20 years. The offence does not appear to have raised any great anxiety in the family of the prosecutrix's husband as even in the Panchayat as stated by her husband, who has admitted that when in the night, he narrated the incident to his uncles, they told him that it was nothing to worry about and that they would do whatever was necessary in the morning. Similarly, he further states that on the next day, the Panchayat was called and in the Panchayat, the Panchas expressed that they was not impressed with his story and advised him to go to the police. It when then that the report was lodged. The accused is not a previous convict. The act of rape does not appear to be brutal and in these circumstances, I am of the opinion that the sentence of seven years R.I. is a little too harsh, In almost a similar case, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has taken a lenient view as would be clear from the authority reported in Phul Singh v. State of Haryana : 1980CriLJ8 . In that case, a four years' sentence was reduced to two years' R.I. as the accused was in his early twenties and was not a habitual offender, signs of repentance were seen and the families of the accused and the victim were also ready to take a lenient view.