CR.A/788/2005 1/8 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 788 of 2005 with CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1631 of 2005 For Approval and Signature: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.L.DAVE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE J.C.UPADHYAYA ========================================================= 1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2 To be referred to the Reporter or not ? 3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ? 4 Whether this case involves a substantial question of law as to the interpretation of the constitution of India, 1950 or any order made thereunder ? 5 Whether it is to be circulated to the civil judge ? ========================================================= NARANBHAI BACHUBHAI SOLANKI - Appellant Versus THE STATE OF GUJARAT - Respondent ========================================================= Appearance : MR HARSHIT S TOLIA for Appellant. MR KC SHAH, APP, for Respondent-State ========================================================= CORAM : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.L.DAVE and HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE J.C.UPADHYAYA Date : 17/10/2008 ORAL JUDGMENT (Per : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.L.DAVE) CR.A/788/2005 2/8 JUDGMENT These two appeals arise out of the judgment and order rendered by the Sessions Court, Jamnagar, in Sessions Case No. 99/2004, on 24th January, 2005. 2. The appellant in Criminal Appeal No. 788/2005 is the original accused. He came to be convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 376 & 450 of the Indian Penal Code and was sentenced to undergo R.I. for a period of eight years with fine of Rs.5,000/-, and R.I. for a period of two years with fine of Rs.1,000/-, for the two offences respectively, with appropriate sentence in the event of default in payment of fine. 3. Against the said judgment and order, the convict, appellant in Criminal Appeal No. 788/2005, has preferred the appeal challenging his conviction; whereas the State of Gujarat has preferred Criminal Appeal No.1631/2005 under Section 377 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, for enhancement of sentence. 4. The brief facts of the case are that the convict and the prosecutrix are neighbours. They were staying at village Anandpar within the jurisdiction of Nikawa Police Outpost in CR.A/788/2005 3/8 JUDGMENT Jamnagar District. The prosecutrix is congenitally deaf and dumb. It is the case of the prosecution that on 2.8.2004 at about 1.00 p.m., the appellant-convict took undue advantage of dumbness of the prosecutrix by entering the house of first informant Roshanben (mother of the prosecutrix) and committed rape on her. While he was in the process of committing rape, suddenly Roshanben entered the house and she is, therefore, the eye witness to the incident. She immediately lodged the F.I.R. Offence came to be registered and investigated, and the investigating agency, having found sufficient evidence against the accused, filed charge sheet in the Court of learned J.M.F.C. Kalawad, who, in turn, committed the case to the Court of Sessions, Jamnagar, as the offences charged were triable by the Court of Sessions, and Sessions Case No. 99/2004 came to be registered. 4.2 The appellant-convict denied the charges framed against him at Exh.6 and claimed to be tried. The trial Court, upon considering the evidence led by the prosecution, came to the conclusion that the prosecution was able to establish the charge for the offence punishable under Section 376 r.w.Section 450 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to imprisonment with fine, as stated above. CR.A/788/2005 4/8 JUDGMENT 5. We have heard learned advocate Mr.Tolia for the appellant-convict and learned A.P.P. Mr.K.C.Shah for the State. We have also examined the record and proceedings. 6. We find that there is ample evidence to show that the prosecutrix was below 16 years of age. She was congenitally deaf and dumb and Roshanben is the eye witness to the rape being committed by the convict. Roshanben has been examined at Exh.14 and she supports the prosecution case fully. We also find that the F.I.R. has been lodged soon after the incident. There is medical evidence to show that the prosecutrix had fresh rupture of hymen with oozing of blood and bloodstained clothes. There is also forensic evidence to show that the clothes of the convict were stained with blood of the group of the prosecutrix. It is a matter of record that the convict is aged 45 years and was married when the incident occurred and has five daughters, two of whom are of marriageable age. 7. Learned advocate Mr.Tolia, in all fairness, conceded that he is not able to assail the judgment, so far as the above factual findings are concerned, and he is, therefore, not in a CR.A/788/2005 5/8 JUDGMENT position to assail the conviction. According to Mr.Tolia, the appellant-convict prays for mercy by reducing the sentence to what is prescribed as minimum by the statute i.e. seven years. He submitted that the accused is convicted for a heinous crime, but, his misdeed and consequential punishment would result into punishment to the family members of the convict. He has five daughters, two of whom are of marriageable age and if the case is sympathetically considered, the appellant may come out of the prison and that may enable him to find good matches for his daughters and may look after his family. He, therefore, has prayed for appropriate alteration in the sentence. 8. Learned A.P.P. Mr.K.C.Shah, on the other hand, submitted that the trial Court has shown leniency towards the convict. Looking to the marital status of the convict, his social positioning qua the prosecutrix ought to have been considered by the trial Court and higher punishment ought to have been awarded. He, therefore, submitted that the appeal by the convict may be dismissed and the appeal by the State may be allowed by enhancing the sentence and/or fine. 9. We have considered the rival side submissions. Having CR.A/788/2005 6/8 JUDGMENT examined the record, we are of the view that learned advocate Mr.Tolia was justified in conceding the situation that the conviction has rightly been recorded by the trial Court. To state a few material facts, we may say that the incident is seen by the mother of the prosecutrix Roshanben. She, therefore, supports the prosecution case of rape against the convict. There is medical and forensic evidence to show that the prosecutrix was below the age of 16 years, that she was deaf and dumb and that she had fresh rupture of hymen with blood oozing therefrom. There is evidence to show that the clothes of the prosecutrix were stained with her blood, so also, the clothes of the appellant-convict. Under the circumstances, conviction is rightly recorded. 10. Now, we come to the question, whether the sentence awarded can be said to be unduly lenient or unduly harsh so as to label it as `arbitrary' or `grossly disproportionate' to the nature of the offence. 11. In this regard, if the order of the trial Court is seen, it is clear that the trial Court has taken into consideration the fact that the convict had tried to take undue advantage of dumbness of the prosecutrix and has committed rape. The CR.A/788/2005 7/8 JUDGMENT Court has also taken into consideration that the age of the accused or his poverty may not be the only relevant factors. The trial Court has also observed that sentence cannot be awarded on sentiment or emotion, but, considering the overall social, economic and psychiatric backgrounds of the victim as well as the accused, the order is passed. 12. Differently put, the learned Judge of the trial Court had applied his mind and tried to reason out the quantum of sentence, along with compensation, in his own way and, therefore, it cannot be said that the decision is rendered in an arbitrary manner. The punishment awarded is not grossly disproportionate to the gravity of offence. The judicial discretion is used upon application of mind. We are, therefore, of the view that the appeal of the convict cannot be accepted. Likewise, the appeal of the State also cannot be accepted, as it is not possible to hold that the decision is taken by the trial Court on the quantum of punishment in an arbitrary manner. Considering the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the view that the appeal filed by the State also cannot be accepted. CR.A/788/2005 8/8 JUDGMENT For the foregoing reasons, both the appeals must fail and are dismissed. [A.L.Dave,J.] [J.C.Upadhyaya,J.] (patel)