1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 61 OF 2009 AND CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 29 OF 2010 CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 61 OF 2009 Jitendra @ Jitu @ Ronak Shirodkar, son of Vassudev Shirodkar, aged 25 years, occupation business, r/o Vodlembhat, Dongorim, Ilhas-Goa. (Presently lodged at Central Jail, Aguada), ... Appellant versus State (Through P.I. Shri Wilson D'Souza, Porvorim Police Station). ... Respondent Shri Arun Bras De Sa, Advocate for the Appellant. Shri C. A. Ferreira, Public Prosecutor for the Respondent. CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 29 OF 2010 State, Through Police Inspector, Porvorim Police Station, Porvorim-Goa. ... Appellant 2 versus Mr. Jitendra @ Jitu @ Ronak Shirodkar, presently lodged in Aguada Central Jail, Aguada, Bardez, Goa. ... Respondent Shri C. A. Ferreira, Public Prosecutor for the Appellant. Shri Arun Bras De Sa, Advocate for the Respondent. CORAM : N. A. BRITTO, J. DATE : 17TH AUGUST, 2010. JUDGMENT Heard. 2. The accused was charged and tried under Sections 363 and 376 I.P.C. and Section 8(2) of the Goa Children's Act, 2003. The accused was convicted and sentenced under Section 376 r/w Section 8(2) of the Goa Children's Act, 2003 and acquitted under Section 363 I.P.C. 3. Against the Judgment of conviction, the accused filed Criminal Appeal No.61 of 2009, and against the acquittal the State filed Criminal Appeal No. 29 of 2010. 3 4. The accused and PW2, the alleged victim, have filed an application stating that the incident which took place on 25-1-2005 was consensual and that now they want to live together, and, therefore the proceedings be closed. 5. The learned Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the Respondent has no objection. 6. Shri Arun Bras De Sa, learned Counsel has submitted that the accused had undergone imprisonment of 24 days, and, therefore that period be considered as substantive sentence imposed upon the accused, and in support of the said submission has placed reliance on a three Judge Judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Sukhwinder Singh v. State of Punjab ((2000) 9 SCC 204) wherein the Apex Court noted that in terms of the proviso under Section 376 I.P.C. the Court may, for adequate and special reasons to be mentioned in the Judgment, impose a sentence of imprisonment for a term of less than seven years. The evidence of PW2/Cassandra D'Costa recorded before the learned Children's Court on 2-2-2007 as well as the plea taken by the accused in his statement recorded under Section 313 of the Code shows that PW2/Cassandra D'Costa at the relevant time was about 15 years of age and both were friendly with one another and in fact as stated by PW2/Cassandra D'Costa they were in love with each other and were meeting 4 each other almost on alternate days and not only that PW2/Cassandra D'Costa had also informed her parents that she was friendly with the accused and on 25-1-2005 after the school was over at about 1.45 p.m. PW2/Cassandra D'Costa went along with the accused and had sex with him. She had also stated that she had agreed to have sex with the accused because the accused had promissed to marry her. 7. In the above cited case, the prosecutrix had got married with the accused and did not want the matter to be carried any further and filed a compromise petition, and that was considered as adequate and special reason to invoke the proviso. The Apex Court therefore observed that in the facts of the case the matter be given a quietus particularly when the alleged offence had taken place almost a decade ago. 8. The facts of the case at hand are not very different either. PW2/Cassandra D'Costa was born on 26-10-1991 as stated by her to the Medical Officer Dr. Sapeco which means that PW2/Cassandra D'Costa is now a major and she has taken a conscious decision to live together along with the accused, and both have prayed for that the proceedings be closed. 9. Considering the request made by both the parties and the stand taken by the State, this Criminal Appeal No.61 of 2009 shall stand disposed of 5 by reducing the sentence to the period undergone by the accused of 24 days as stated by learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the accused. 10. Learned Public Prosecutor therefore seeks leave to withdraw Criminal Appeal No.29 of 2010. Leave granted. Dismissed as withdrawn. 11. Accordingly, proceedings in Criminal No.61 of 2009 shall stand closed. N. A. BRITTO, J. RD