1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR JUDGMENT STATE OF RAJASTHAN VS. RAJU SB Criminal Appeal No. 75 of 2001 under Section 377 Cr.P.C. against the order dated November 11, 2000 of Special Judge (Atrocities on Women and Dowry Cases ) Jaipur in Criminal Case No. 76 of 1999 by which the accused respondent was convicted for the offence under section 376 IPC and sentenced for four years simple imprisonment and fine of Rs. 2000 and in default of payment of fine six months additional imprisonment which shall run separately. Date of Order : April 16, 2009 PRESENT HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHESH CHANDRA SHARMA Mr. Piyush Kumar, Public Prosecutor for the appellant State of Rajasthan. Mr. Ajay Gupta, for the accused respondent. BY THE COURT : State of Rajasthan has preferred this appeal against the order dated November 11, 2000 of Special Judge (Atrocities on Women and Dowry Cases ) Jaipur in Criminal Case No. 76 of 1999 by which the accused respondent was convicted for the offence under section 376 IPC and sentenced for four years simple imprisonment and fine of Rs. 2000 and in default of payment of fine six months additional 2 imprisonment which shall run separately. This appeal has been filed specifically for enhancement of the sentence. 2. Brief facts of the case are that First Information Report Ex.P.1 was lodged by Gopal lal Khati at Police Station Dudu at 4.10 p.m. in which it was stated that his niece Bhooridevi aged 8 years went for taking drinking water at Pond and she was raped by Raju Kumhar. The accused respondent caught hold of her and taken away her under the tree Acacia Arabica (Bambool tree) and gaged her mouth with clothes and committed the offence of rape. This occurrence was seen by one Gheeshi, who went there for taking water from the Pond. Accused respondent Raju went away. Upon the said report the police registered a case under sections 376 and 201 IPC. After investigation the police filed challan. The concerned Magistrate committed the case to the Court of Sessions for trial. The trial court framed 3 the charge for the offence under section 376 IPC. The accused respondent denied the same and claimed to be tried. The prosecution examined in support of its case 18 witnesses and exhibited 21 documents. The statement of accused respondent under section 313 Cr.P.C. was also recorded. After hearing both the sides the learned trial court convicted the accused respondent by the judgment dated November 9, 2000 as mentioned above. Aggrieved from the said judgment , the State of Rajasthan preferred this appeal for enhancement of the sentence awarded to the accused respondent. 3. The learned Public Prosecutor contended that the trial court has rightly convicted the accused respondent but the sentence awarded by the trial court is not sufficient in such type of heinous offence. He has drawn attention of this court on the different statements of the prosecution witnesses. The Public 4 Prosecutor prayed for enhancing the sentence awarded to the accused respondent. 4. On the other hand, Mr. Ajay Gupta, learned counsel appearing for the accused respondent, contended that the accused respondent was 20 years of age at the time of commission of offence. It was the first offence of the accused respondent and he belonged to poor family and he has completed the sentence awarded by the trial court and he is facing trial for last 11 years which tantamount to mental agony. 5. For these reasons I do not find it to be a fit case in which after passing 11 years, to enhance the sentence which has been completed by the accused respondent. I dismiss the appeal filed by the State of Rajasthan and confirmed the order of conviction dated November 9, 2000 of Special Judge (Atrocities on Women and 5 Dowry Cases) Jaipur. (Mahesh Chandra Sharma) J. OPPareek/