IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CRIMINAL APPEAL No.605 OF 2004 Between: The Sate of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by the Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad. ..... Appellant AND Budda Francies ..... Accused/Respondent The Court made the following: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CRIMINAL APPEAL No.605 OF 2004 JUDGMENT: State preferred the present Criminal Appeal, under Section 377 (1) of the Code of the Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, “Cr.P.C.”), against the judgment, dated 31.01.2002, in Sessions Case No.81 of 2000, on the file of the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Khammam, for enhancement of the sentence. By the impugned judgment, the respondent/accused was found guilty of the offence punishable under Section 376 (f) read with 511 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, “I.P.C.”), and accordingly convicted and sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of one year. 2. In view of the fact that it is an appeal by the State filed aggrieved by the quantum of punishment imposed by the trial court, the findings of the trial court with regard to the conviction of the accused of the offence punishable under Section 376 (f) read with 511 I.P.C. need not be gone into. Suffice to say that the present Criminal Appeal is confined only with regard to the sentence. 3. There cannot be any dispute that imposing the sentence is totally within the discretion of the Court. However, that discretion shall not be exercised arbitrarily or capriciously. The imposition of proper sentence is based upon the doctrine of proportionality. The sentence of imprisonment should be in proportion with the severity of the crime committed by the accused. 4. The case against the accused is that he attempted to commit rape on the minor girl. The trial court convicted the accused of the offence punishable under Section 376 (f) read with 511 I.P.C. With regard to sentence, the trial Court has given a finding that the accused is physically handicapped person; he cannot walk; he is depending upon his family members and there must be some help even to go for calls of nature. Considering those aspects, the sentence of one year has been imposed. Therefore, the trial Court has given adequate and special reasons for imposing the lesser sentence than the prescribed minimum sentence and so, the imposition of sentence is not shown to be disproportionate to the severity of the crime committed. Therefore, there are no grounds to interfere with the sentence imposed by the trial Court. 5. Accordingly, the Criminal Appeal is dismissed confirming the judgment, dated 31.01.2002, in Sessions Case No.81 of 2000, on the file of the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Khammam. _______________ (K.C. BHANU, J) Date: 18th January, 2010 KL