[-1-] IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.328 OF 2006 WITH CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.358 OF 2006 IN CRI.APPEAL NO. 328 OF 2006 Mohammad Mumtaj Muslim Alam ..Appellant Vs. State of Maharashtra & Anr...Respondents ... Mr.Shivraj R.Patil Advocate for Appellant Mr.J.P.Yagnik A.P.P. for the State ... CORAM: SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. CORAM: SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. CORAM: SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. DATE : JANUARY 23, 2008 DATE : JANUARY 23, 2008 DATE : JANUARY 23, 2008 P.C. P.C. P.C. 1. Heard the learned advocate for the appellant-original accused, the learned A.P.P. for the State, the complainant Smt.Savita Vijay Bansode Respondent No.2 who is the mother of prosecutrix, Suman Vijay Bansode the prosecutrix in person and Mohammad Mumtaj Muslim Alam who is the accused. Perused the judgment and order dated 2.2.2006. The learned advocate for the appellant has stated that he is limiting his arguments only to the quantum of sentence imposed on the appellant and as far as the conviction is concerned, he is not challenging the [-2-] same. 2. The appellant has been convicted for the offence under Section 366-A and 376 of IPC by the judgment and order dated 2.2.2006 passed by the learned 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Thane in Sessions Case No.95 of 2005. 3. Brief facts of the prosecution case are as under: . The appellant and the prosecutrix were known to each other. The appellant was in love with the prosecutrix. From the evidence on record, the learned Judge has rightly arrived at the finding that the prosecutrix had voluntarily accompanied the accused-appellant to Jharkhand without any threat or inducement from the accused. As far as the sexual intercourse is concerned, the prosecutrix in her evidence does not say that there was forcible sexual intercourse. No doubt, an offence under Section 376 of IPC is made out as the prosecutrix was below 16 years of age at the time of the offence. At the end of the trial, an application came to be preferred by the appellant [-3-] (Exhibit-41) wherein he has stated that prosecutrix Suman as well as her mother Savita (complainant) wanted to compromise the matter and after Suman completes 18 years of age, he and Suman are ready to marry each other. I have interviewed the prosecutrix Suman today. Suman is accompanied by her mother Savita Bansode as well as Reshma who is the elder sister of the prosecutrix. Suman in their presence has stated that she is in love with the appellant and she wishes to marry the appellant-accused after she completes 18 years of age. The complainant Savita Bansode has also stated that there is no objection to her daughter Suman marrying the appellant and in fact, she has given her consent to the said marriage. The accused also stated that he is waiting for Suman to complete 18 years of age, so that he can marry her. Suman is now 17 years of age. 4. Suman as well as Savita the mother of Suman and Reshma have all stated that the period of imprisonment imposed on the appellant may be reduced to the period already undergone by him so that as soon as Suman completes 18 years of age, she can get married to the appellant. The [-4-] accused-appellant is a young boy of 20 years and except this case, he has a clean record. In my opinion, this is a fit case where the provisions to proviso to Section 376 of IPC, can be invoked and a lenient view in respect of the sentence of imprisonment can be taken. Hence, the following order. ORDER 1. The conviction of the appellant under Section 366-A and 376 of IPC, is maintained. However, sentence of rigorous imprisonment for three years is reduced to the period already undergone by the appellant. The fine of Rs.2,000/- has already been paid by the appellant. The sentence of fine is maintained. 2. During the pendency of the appellant, Criminal Application No.358 of 2006 came to be preferred by the appellant for bail. During the hearing of the said bail application, the learned counsel for [-5-] the applicant therein i.e. the present appellant made a statement that the applicant is prepared to pay compensation of Rs.50,000/- to the prosecutrix and he will deposit the said amount within eight weeks in this Court. The said amount has been deposited in this Court. The prosecutrix being minor, the Registrar (Judicial) to invest the said amount in a fixed deposit upto 31.7.2008 in a nationalised bank and thereafter, for a further period of three months if necessary. Liberty is granted to the prosecutrix to make an application for withdrawal of the said amount of compensation of Rs.50,000/- after she completes 18 years of age. 3. Appeal is disposed of accordingly in the above terms. 4. In view of the disposal of the above appeal, Criminal Application No.358 [-6-] of 2006 does not survive and is disposed of accordingly. [SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI, J.]