CR.A/78720/2001 1/3 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 787 of 2001 For Approval and Signature: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE BHAGWATI PRASAD HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE BANKIM.N.MEHTA ====================================== 1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2 To be referred to the Reporter or not ? 3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ? 4 Whether this case involves a substantial question of law as to the interpretation of the constitution of India, 1950 or any order made thereunder ? 5 Whether it is to be circulated to the civil judge ? ====================================== KANUBHAI JAGABHAI TADVI Versus STATE OF GUJARAT ====================================== Appearance : Ms SADHANA SAGAR for the Appellant Ms Mita Panchal, Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent ====================================== CORAM : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE BHAGWATI PRASAD and HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE BANKIM.N.MEHTA Date : 27/11/2008 CR.A/78720/2001 2/3 JUDGMENT ORAL JUDGMENT (Per : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE BHAGWATI PRASAD) The present appeal has been preferred by the appellant – original accused against the judgment and order dated 18.9.2001 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Vadodara in Sessions Case No.317 of 2000. By the said judgment and order the appellant – original accused has been convicted under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code and was sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for life. Heard learned counsel for the parties. The incident is not disputed. The only thing urged on behalf of the learned counsel appearing for the appellant is that it was an act of frustration of the accused that he had subjected a seven year old girl to an assault of sexual nature. Such offences, when committed by the persons on small aged girls, cannot be said to be committed by the persons of common human conduct. They are aberrations. The maximum sentence under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code being a life or 10 years, the learned counsel for the appellant prays that 10 years may be awarded. Ms Mita Panchal, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, per contra submitted that life sentence is the appropriate sentence, which should be awarded in such type of cases. Having regard to the facts of the case and having regard to the pros and cons of the matter, we are of the considered view of the matter that sentence of 10 years would be appropriate for a mentally sick man, because such acts are only committed by sick persons. That being the position, we reduce the sentence from life to 10 years and impose a fine of Rs.10,000/-, in default to further undergo RI for six months. CR.A/78720/2001 3/3 JUDGMENT In the result, the appeal is partly allowed. The conviction is altered from life sentence to 10 years with a fine of Rs.10,000/-, in default to further RI for six months. (Bhagwati Prasad, J.) (Bankim N Mehta, J.) *mohd