1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1322 OF 2006 The State of Maharashtra ..Applicant V/s. Kailas Sopan Zade ..Respondent Ms.P.H.Kantharia, A.P.P, for the State Mr.Indrajeet Joshi, Advocate, for respondent CORAM : F.I.REBELLO & K.U.CHANDIWAL, JJ. DATE : 18TH JUNE, 2008 ORAL ORDER . Appeal is admitted. Both the counsels agree that appeal can be heard and disposed of on merits itself. 2. The Trial Court after considering the evidence on record by the Judgment dated 8th August, 2006 in Special Case No.271 of 2004 by exercising its discretion sentenced respondent herein to suffer R.I for four years and to pay fine of Rs.1000/- in default to suffer further 2 R.I for three months. 3. Against that Judgment the present applicant has preferred this appeal. No appeal has been preferred by the respondent. In other words, the findings by the learned Judge stand confirmed. The only issue is whether the punishment imposed of four years was sufficient on the facts on record. On behalf of the State it is submitted that considering the age of the prosecutrix and the manner in which the incident happened, the sentence of four years is not sufficient and consequently, this Court should enhance the said sentence. 4. We have perused the findings of the learned Trial Court. We find from the record that the Trial Court has accepted the evidence of the prosecutrix. The learned Judge also found blood stains on the nicker of P.W.4 prosecutrix at Exh.10. Though, there was a delay of some days, considering the evidence on record in our opinion, the findings by the learned Judge cannot be faulted. 5. The learned Judge taking into consideration the facts that 3 the respondent is married and has two minor children, and that they depend upon livelihood of the respondent and also that there is no past antecedent, was pleased to sentence the accused of four years R.I. 6. In our opinion, considering the record ends of justice will meet, if punishment is increased from four years to five years. 7. In the light of above, we pass the following order. (i) Appeal is partly allowed. (ii) The sentence imposed of four years is enhanced to five years R.I. Rest of the order is confirmed. (iii) Appeal is disposed of accordingly. (F.I.REBELLO, J.) (K.U.CHANDIWAL, J.)