:1: apeal.545.05 ata IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 545 OF 2005 Rajaram K. Namdeo Residing at Gaonshigaon Trimbakeshwar,Tal Trimbakeshwar, Dist Nashik ..Appellant vs State of Maharashtra Through Trimbakeshwar Police Station Tal. Trimbakeshwar,Dist Nashik ..Respondent Mr. Aniket Vagal, for Appellant. Smt. V. R. Bhosale,APP for State. CORAM :- A. M. THIPSAY, J. DATE :- SEPTEMBER 16, 2011 ORAL JUDGMENT The Appellant was the Accused No.1 in Sessions Case No. 211 of 2002 in the Court of Session at Nashik. The allegation against the Appellant and the other accused was in respect of the offences punishable under Sections 376(2) (g) IPC, 363 IPC, 366 IPC, & 506 IPC read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. :2: apeal.545.05 2 The learned Additional Sessions Judge,Nashik, convicted the Appellant of the offences punishable under Section 366 IPC read with Section 34 of the IPC, Section 376(2) (g) read with Section 34 of IPC, Section 506 IPC read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him as follows: i) for the offence punishable under Section 366 read with Section 34 of the IPC, R. I for 3 years, and a fine of Rs.300 &, with a default a sentence of R. I for 15 days. ii) for the offence punishable under Section 376(2) (g) of the IPC , R.I for 10 years and a fine of Rs.500/- with a default sentence of RI for one month. iii)for the offence punishable under Section 506 of the IPC , RI for 6 months ,and a fine of Rs.300/- with a default sentence of RI for six months. The substantive sentences were directed to run concurrently. 3 Being aggrieved by the judgment of conviction and sentence, the Appellant has filed the present appeal. 4 In the course of arguments, Mr. Vagal, the learned Advocate for the Appellant, submitted that the appellant has already remained in custody during the pendency of the present trial, and that if a lenient view of the matter with respect to the sentence is taken, he would not :3: apeal.545.05 press the present appeal on merits. In view of the concession made by him, I have examined the evidence on record not very meticulously. I have however gone through the reasoning of the Trial Court with respect to the finding arrived at by it. 5 The Trial Court believed the evidence of the prosecutrix, which was found to be corroborated by medical evidence. Since no oral arguments challenging the appreciation of the evidence,as done by the Trial Court, have been advanced and since, on a reading of the evidence and the judgment delivered by the Trial Court, there does not appear to be any infirmity in the conclusion arrived at by the Trial Court,the finding about the guilt of the Appellant is not liable to be disturbed. 6 I have heard Mr. Vagal, the learned Advocate for the Applicant,as regards the question of sentence. He pointed out that the Appellant was only of 21 years of age at the time of incident. He also pointed out that there were no antecedents. He also pointed out that even before the trial, the victim had got married, and as such, her life was not shattered by the alleged offence. Though the Appellant appears to have committed the alleged offence, it does not appear that he acted with any cruelty or brutality. As a matter of fact, it appears that the victim did not offer any resistance- off course, due to fear. :4: apeal.545.05 7 Considering all the relevant aspects of the matter, in my view, it would be proper to reduce the substantive sentence imposed upon the Appellant with respect to the offence punishable under Section 376(2) (g) of the Indian Penal Code. It would be appropriate, however, to enhance the amount of fine. 8 In the result, the Appeal is disposed of as follows: 9 The conviction of the Appellant in respect of the offences, in question, as recorded by the trial Court, is maintained. However the sentence imposed in respect of the offence punishable under Section 376(2) (g) of the IPC is modified as follows: 1. The conviction of the Appellant in respect of the offences in question, as recorded by the Trial Court is maintained. However, the sentence imposed in respect of the offence punishable under Section 376(2)(g) of the IPC is modified as follows: a) The substantive sentence is reduced to RI for 8 years. b) The sentence of fine is enhanced to Rs.7,500/- In default of payment of fine, the Appellant shall undergo SI. for six months. :5: apeal.545.05 c) Save and except, as aforesaid, no other order in this Appeal,which stands disposed of in the aforesaid terms. ( A. M. THIPSAY, J. )