CR.A/171/1985 1/3 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 171 of 1985 With CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 172 of 1985 For Approval and Signature: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE BHAGWATI PRASAD HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.R.BRAHMBHATT ========================================================= 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 ? ========================================================= STATE OF GUJARAT - Appellant Versus HARIJAN GOVINDBHAI & 1 – Respondent ========================================================= Appearance : MR HASURKAR ADDL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR for Appellant: 1, MR MANOJ N POPAT for Respondent : 1, MR PM VYAS for Respondent : 2, ========================================================= CORAM : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE BHAGWATI PRASAD and HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.R.BRAHMBHATT Date : 22/07/2008 CR.A/171/1985 2/3 JUDGMENT COMMON ORAL JUDGMENT (Per : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE BHAGWATI PRASAD) 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. These are the two appeals filed by the State in a case where the respondents were convicted for the offence punishable under Section 376 of the IPC. The accused has chosen not to challenge the conviction and conviction has become final and he is sentenced to undergo R.I. for 6 months. 2. Learned counsel for the respondents has candidly admitted that the sentence cannot be said to be proper sentence and submitted that after such a distance of time, when the appeal was filed in the year 1985 and we are in 2008, after about 23 years, sending the accused behind the bar would not serve the ends of justice and prayed that the Court may take lenient view and pass appropriate fine. 3. Learned APP Shri Hasurkar did not agree with the proposition advanced by learned counsel for the respondents and submitted that the only course available to the Court is to sentence the accused as per law. 4. Having considered the arguments of learned counsel for the parties, we are of the considered view that instead of sentencing the CR.A/171/1985 3/3 JUDGMENT accused persons to the sentence of imprisonment, the fine may be enhanced and accordingly fine is enhanced and accused are ordered to pay Rs.25,000=00 each and rest of the order dated 18.12.1984 passed by learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Ahmedabad Rural at Narol in Sessions case No.42 of 1984 & 83 of 1984 is hereby confirmed. It is further ordered that when the respondents deposit the amount of fine as ordered, same would be given as compensation to the prosecutrix. The accused are present in the court and filed an affidavit showing their willingness to deposit the amount of fine as ordered. The said affidavit dated 22nd July, 2008 is ordered to be taken on record. Accordingly, the fine may be deposited within a period of 6 weeks from today before the trial Court. Accordingly, the Criminal Appeal No. 171 of 1985 filed by the State for enhancement of sentence is partly allowed and Criminal Appeal No. 172 of 1985 filed by State of Gujarat challenging the order of acquittal of accused is dismissed. Bail bond dated 14.7.2008 stands cancelled. In case of default in depositing the amount, the accused will serve a sentence which will be pronounced on this fact being notified to this Court. (BHAGWATI PRASAD, J.) (S.R.BRAHMBHATT, J.) pallav