1 Pdp IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1193 OF 2008 The State of Maharashtra .. Applicant Vs. Vitthal Mahadu Romade .. Respondent Smt. V.R. Bhosale, APP for applicant. CORAM: B.H.MARLAPALLE & SMT. ROSHAN DALVI, JJ. September 14, 2009. P.C. We have heard Smt. Bhosale, the learned APP. This is an appeal filed under Section 377 (1) of Cr.P.C. for enhancement of sentence awarded by the trial court in Sessions Case No. 224 of 2003 while upholding that the charge for an offence punishable under Section 376 of IPC came to be proved against the sole accused i.e. the present respondent. As per the prosecution case, the prosecutrix was studying in 8th standard in the month of June 2002 and the complainant, who is her mother, had beaten her. In that situation, prosecutrix had gone away with the accused and she was traced after about six months in the company of the accused. The trial court held that the prosecutrix was below the age of 16 years 2 and though she had stayed with the accused for about five months as his wife, an offence punishable under Section 376 of IPC was proved. The trial court held that the offence, as defined under Section 375 (sixthly) of IPC was proved. However, on the issue of sentence, the learned Judge considered the peculiar circumstances of the case and awarded the sentence for the period already undergone i.e. one year and twenty days. The learned Judge noted that the prosecutrix had gone with the accused since her mother had beaten her because she was carrying an affair with the accused and they had stayed together as husband and wife for about five months. As per the trial court, her statement to the police was totally voluntary in nature and denying the allegations of kidnapping or of having forcible sexual intercourse. However, while before the court, she changed her story and may be because of the tutoring or at the instance of her mother. It was under these peculiar circumstances, the trial court appears to have referred to the proviso below Section 376(1) of IPC and by setting out specific reasons has awarded the sentence for a period, which is less than seven years. The view taken by the trial court is a possible view and it cannot be termed as grossly erroneous or perverse so as to call for interference at the hands of the Appellate Court. The reasoning set out by the trial court in paras 37 to 40 of the impugned order appears to be in keeping with the scheme of Section 376(1) of IPC and the proviso below it. Hence, the appeal fails at the threshold and the same is hereby dismissed. (SMT. ROSHAN DALVI,J.) (B.H.MARLAPALLE,J.)