1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE SIDE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 192 OF 1990 (By State against acquittal ) The State of Maharashtra. .. Appellant Vs Suresh Shankar Jadhav. .. Respondent (Org.Accused) -- Shri P.S. Hingorani, Additional Public Prosecutor for the State. Shri M.K. Kocharekar for the Respondent/Accused. -- CORAM : SWATANTER KUMAR, C.J. & S.C. DHARMADHIKARI, J DATED : 7TH MAY, 2009. P.C. Vide our judgment delivered today, we have found the Accused guilty of an offence under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 57 of the Bombay Children Act, 1948. We have heard learned Counsel appearing for the State and the Accused on the question of quantum of sentence. It is contended on behalf of the Accused that he was of a very young age on the date of commission of the crime and by now, a period of more than 20 years have gone by. He is married and has children. It is further submitted that it is a fit case where in view of the facts and circumstances of the case and particularly that he was acquitted by the Learned Trial Court vide the impugned judgment that the Court may exercise power in terms of the proviso to Section 376 of the Indian 2 Penal Code and award lesser punishment of less than 7 years and fine. 2. It is correct that the incident is alleged to be of 11th August, 1987 and the Accused is stated to be nearly 21 years old at that time but at the same time the Court should not ignore the fact that the victim was 8 to 11 years old on the date of the incident. It is not a case where the Court should not award severe punishment to the Accused but in view of particular fact of the case, it will be appropriate and we are of the considered view that the ends of justice would meet if some lesser punishment, i.e. Minimum punishment prescribed, is awarded to the Accused. Thus, while exercising our power under the proviso to Section 376(1) of the Indian Penal Code, we are satisfied that there is adequate and special reason for imposing imprisonment for a term less than 7 years as the entire family of the Accused would have to suffer if maximum sentence is awarded to him at this juncture. Considerable time has elapsed i.e. nearly 22 years has gone by and the Accused has enjoyed the benefit of order of acquittal. 3. In these circumstances, we award rigorous imprisonment of 3 years to the Accused with fine of Rs.50,000/- (Fifty Thousand only), in default, rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months. The fine shall be recovered and paid as compensation to the victim. We also sentence 3 the Accused to undergo rigorous imprisonment under Section 57 of the Bombay Children Act, 1948 for a period of 2 years but impose no fine under that provision. The sentences awarded to the Accused shall run concurrently. The Accused shall surrender within a period of six weeks from today before Trial Court. CHIEF JUSTICE S.C. DHARMADHIKARI, J