minal Appeal No 3 of 1972
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated January 25 1971 of the Madhya Pradesh High Court Indore Bench in Criminal Appeal No 391 of 1969
section K Gambhir for the appellant
M N Shroff for the respondent
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Beg J Shiv Govind the appellant  has obtained Special
Leave to appeal against only that part of the Judgment and order of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh by which his sentence of one year s Rigorous Imprisonment passed by the Additional Sessions  Judge Indore upon a conviction under Section 366 Indian Penal Code was enhanced to seven years  Rigorous Imprisonment 836 and a fine of Rs 100  and in
default of payment of fine to three months  further rigorous imprisonment
The appellant aged about 20 years at the time of the alleged offence of 9th of August 1969 was the youngest of three persons who were jointly charged and tried for offences punishable under Section 366 and 354 IPC The prosecution case was  Kumari Seema a girl below 18 years of age was offered a lift on his bicycle by the accused Kamal Singh aged 30 years while she was returning to her homefrom her School on 9th August 1969
The girl hesitated
But as she reposed confidence in Kamal Singh whom she looked upon as her uncle she accepted the offer
Kamal Singh took Kumari Seema on his bicycle to the Regal Cinema where she part took of some
refreshment ordered by Kamal Singh
Meanwhile the appellant Shiv Govind and the accused Punani aged 26 arrived in a car
Kamal Singh asked Kumari Seema to go with the two younger men in their car
Seema refused
Then Kamal Singh asked her to go on his bicycle to Yashwant Talkies
She complied with this request
At this Cinema Kanial Singh deposited his Cycle at the Cycle stand
The appellant Shiv Govind and his companion Punam had followed in their car
The three men succeeded in persuading Seema despite her initial refusal to sit in the car and to go for a short pleasure trip in it on the definite assurance that she will soon be reached home
After the girl had sat in the car she was driven to a place called Mandow a number of miles away from Indore and was made to alight at a tourist s bungalow
There two rooms were engaged by the accused
 Kamal Singh occupied one of the two rooms and the girl was closeted in the other room with the appellant and his companion Punam who were both drunk
One of the two youngmen caught hold of the hands of the girl while the other tried to undress her with the object of raping her
Kumari Seema at this point feigned sudden indisposition so that the two youngmen had to bring her out into the gallery for fresh air
She managed to escape while the accused went inside to fetch some water for her She rushed into the house of one Babulal Kamdar and complained to him about the incident
This led to a communication of information of the offences to the Police which went to the tourist s bungalow
and arrested the three accused who were brought to Police Station Nalcha where a First Information Report was lodged
The Trial Court had examined the evidence given in support of the case stated above
This included medical evidence on the question of the age of the girl because while the prosecution alleged that she was below 16 years of age the accused pleaded that she was above 18 years of age
Evidently the case of the accused 837 Was that Kumari Seema was a consenting party to whatever took place
Although the girl was attending a School the entry of her age in the School Register was not disclosed
Despite some discrepancies in the evidence relating to the age of the girl the trial court came to the conclusion that it was between 16 to 19 years
It relied mainly on expert evidence of Doctors who had used the ossification test
The Trial Court had also noticed the discrepancies between the prosecution version as set out above by Kumari Seema in her evidence in Court
and the story given out by her in the First lnformation Report where she had stated that she had joined the party of the accused at the crossing of Bijasan Road
The earlier version suggested that the girl had herself gone to meet the party of the accused by appointment
The consent of the girl was however immaterial in view of the finding of the Trial Court about the age of the girl
The fact that she was taken to Mandow where something happened at the tourist s bungalow which she disapproved of was corroborated by the evidence of Babulal Kamdar and Kailash Sharma in addition to the two police constables of Mandow out post
The Trial Court which had the advantage of watching the demeanour of the girl had come to the conclusion that although the girl may have tried to improve her version and pretend that she was unwilling to accompany Kamal Singh who had come in a car for her according to the first version yet the charge under Sec
366 IPC was established against each of the three accused and the charge under Sec
354 IPC was established against Shiv Govind appellant and his companion Punam
The three accused were therefore convicted under Sec 366 and each was sentenced to one year s rigorous imprisonment
The two accused Shiv Govind and Punam were also convicted under Sec
354 IPC and sentenced to four months rigorous imprisonment but the two sentences were ordered to run concurrently
When the case came up in appeal to the High Court a notice of enhancement of the sentence under Sec
366 IPC was issued to each of the three appellants and their sentences were enhanced as indicated above after the appellants had been heard
It is only Shiv Govind who has appealed to this Court
Shiv Govind had also applied under Sec
561A Criminal Procedure Code to the High Court after the dismissal of his appeal and enhancement of the sentence by the High Court claiming the benefit of Sec 6 and 11 of the Probation of Offender s Act
But this application was rejected by the learned Judge who had enhanced the sentence passed upon the appellant although he 838 round that the report of the Probation Officer about the conduct of the accused while undergoing the sentence which was sent far was favourable to the appellant
It appears from the two Judg ments given by the learned Judge who enhanced the sentence of the appellant and who subsequently dismissed the application Linder Sec
561A Criminal Procedure Code also that the view taken by him was that having regard to the facts and circumstances and of the case and the offence committed by the appellant the enhanced sentence was deserved by him
We have therefore examined the Judgment of the High Court Linder appeal before us in order to discover the special reasons Which induced the learned High Court Judge to differ from the  pinion of the Trial Court about the appropriate sentence to be imposed upon the appellant
The only reason given by the learned Judge for enhancing the sentence was that Kumari Seema had reposed confidence in Kamal Singh whom she regarded as an Uncle so that she could not expect foul play from him
The learned Judge thought the girl s trust and confidence in Kamal Singh explained why she did not protest when she was taken in the car and then made to get down at the tourist s bungalow
It seems however from the account of the occurrence given in the Judgment under appeal that the learned Judge was shocked by the plight of Kumari Seema due to the perfidy of Kamal Singh and by
a contemplation of the possible consequences to her if she had not behaved in a particularly
brave and intelligent manner so as to escape from her predicament
The learned Judge mentioned that the girl had risked her life to escape
We however find that there was no suggestion in the evidence anywhere that any threat to the life of Kumari Seema was held out
There was no evidence that the girl had seriously struggled to escape or had raised shouts for help which would have brought people around to her aid
Nor was there any evidence that the accused tried to obstruct her or to chase her when she escaped from the tourist s bungalow allegedly by resorting to a ruse
The High Court was so impressed by the girl s uncorroborated version of her own heroism which did not tally with her first version in the First Information Report that it overlooked the infirmities in the girl s evidence discussed by the trial court
We find the trial court s view of the whole case to be quite balanced and objective
We do not think that the severer view of the High Court could be reasonably justified
It seems clear to us that the High Court had overlooked the principles laid down by this Court repeatedly which should 839 govern the exercise of powers of the High Court to enhance sen tences Imposed by trial courts
In Bed Raj vs The State of Uttar Pradesh
this Court observed at page 588 589 A question of a sentence is a matter of discretion and it is well settled that when discretion has been properly exercised along accepted judicial lines an appellate court should not interfere to the detriment of an accused person except for very strong reasons which must be disclosed on the face of the judgment See for example the observations in Dalip Singh vs State of Punjab  156 and Nar Singh vs State of Uttar Pradesh 19551 SCR 238 2411
In a matter of enhancement there should not be interference when the sentence passed imposes substantial punishment
Interference is only called for when it is manifestly inadequate
In our opinion the lese principles have not been observed
It is impossible to hold in the circumstances described that the Sessions Judge did not impose a subs tantial sentence and no adequate reason has been assigned by the learned High Court Judges for considering the sentence manifestly inadequate
In the circumstances
bearing all the considerations of this case in mind we are of opinion that the appeal which is limited to the question of sentence should be allowed and that the sentence imposed by the High Court should be set aside and that of the Sessions Court restored
We think that what was laid down by this Court
in Bed Raj s case Supra is fully applicable to the case before us
We may also mention the similar views expressed by this Court in
Alamgir  A nr vs The State of Bihar 2
We may observe that decision of this Court in Nabi Bux and Ors
vs The State of Madhya Pradesh  is distinguishable from the case before us
In that case the High Court had enhanced a sentence having regard to all the facts and circumstances justifying the enhancement
In the case before us we find that the High Court had not noticed a number of facts duly considered by the trial Court so that the exercise of power of enhancement of the sentence under Sec
366 IPC could not be reasonably justified here
Consequently we allow this appeal by setting aside the order of enhancement of sentence by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh and restore the sentence of one year s rigorous imprisonment 1 1955 2 SCR p 583
2 1959 Supp
1 SCR 464
3  840 passed upon the appellant by the learned Sessions Judge for the offence under Sec
366 IPC of which the appellant was convict ed
The concurrent sentence of four months rigorous imprisonment under Sec
354 IPC which was not interfered with by the High Court is maintained
We understand that the appellant has already undergone more than one year s imprisonment awarded to him and that he is in jail as his application for bail was rejected
If this is so the appellant will be released forthwith unless wanted in some other case
KBN Appeal allowed


Summary:
A question of sentence is a matter of discretion
It is well settled that when discretion has been properly exercised along accepted judicial lines
an appellate Court should not interfere to the detriment of an accused person
Such interference will be justified only by strong reasons Which must be disclosed on the fact of the judgment
In a matter of enhancement there should not be interference when the sentence  passed imposes substantial punishment
lnterference is only called for when it is manifestly inadequate
839 B Where the trial court after taking into account all the circumstances end also the discrepancies in the prosecution version convicted the appellant to one years imprisonment under section 366 Penal Code and the High Court in appeal enhanced the sentence to seven years  imprisonment
HELD  that the High Court had not noticed a number of facts duly considered by the trial court and therefore the exercise of the power of enhancement could not be justified
839 G Bed Rai vs The State of Uttar Pradesh   and Alamgir  Anr
vs The State of Bihar 1959 Supp
I SCR 464 referred to
Nabi Bux and ors
vs The State of Madhya Pradesh A 1
R  distinguished