AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
R.P. Dholaria, J
At the outset of hearing, Mr.A.M.Dagli, learned advocate for the appellants â€" accused submitted that he is not claiming clean acquittal since the
prime accused husband has already undergone sentence for about 7 years, 7 months and 17 days, whereas another accused wife has already
undergone 6 years, 7 months and 5 days of sentence out of the sentence of 10 years each imposed upon them. Mr.Dagli, learned advocate has
submitted that since accused Mukeshbhai Lakhamshibhai Mota has lost his job and he has undergone the sentence as aforesaid and at the relevant
point of time, there was provision for inflicting or imposing sentence less than the sentence of 10 years as provided under the statute as such.
Mr.Dagli, learned advocate further submitted that both the accused have undergone substantial part of sentence and they have two minor daughters
and nobody is there to look after them and therefore, he requested this Court that leniency be shown for reduction of sentence.
On the other-hand, Ms.Punani, learned APP has submitted that such sort of offences are increasing in the society day by day and no leniency be
shown upon the appellants accused for reduction of any sentence as learned trial Court has rightly inflicted sentence which has been provided under
the Indian Penal Code.
This Court has heard Mr.A.M.Dagli, learned advocate for the appellants - accused and Ms.Punani, learned APP for the State.
This Court has been taken by learned advocates for the respective parties through the entire Record and Proceedings. Though learned APP has
strongly opposed for reduction of sentence, but the facts and circumstances of the case clearly indicate that the prime accused was Warden of
Narsinh Natha Jain Balashram Hostel under whom the prosecutrix was residing and at the relevant point of time, the prosecutrix was major. Both the
accused i.e. husband and wife both were picked up after about 4 and 1/2 months from the date of incident and that the present accused having
responsibility to foster two minor daughters and that the offence in question is prior to introduction of amendment in the statute, this Court deems it
appropriate to reduce the sentence by recording special reasons and impose the sentence less than the sentence prescribed under the statute.
In view of the aforesaid peculiar facts and circumstances of the case and in order to put an end to the matter, this Court deems it appropriate to
reduce the sentence to the extent of the sentence of 8 years and 6 months from 10 years of sentence so far as appellant No.1 â€" Mukeshbhai
Lakhamsihibhai Mota is concerned and so far as appellant No.2 â€" Bhavnaben Mukeshbhai Mota is concerned, sentence is imposed to the extent of
sentence already undergone by her.
For the reasons recorded above, the appeal succeeds partly. The impugned judgment and order dated 31.1.2013 passed by learned 3rd Additional
Sessions Judge, Bhuj â€" Kachchh in Sessions Case No.86 of 2011 is confirmed so far it relates to conviction. The appellants accused are convicted
and sentence is imposed to the extent of 8 years and 6 months so far as appellant No.1 is concerned and so far as appellant No.2 is concerned, she is
imposed the sentence to the extent she has already undergone for the offence under section 376 of IPC. The appellant No.2 accused needs not to
surrender before the jail authority for serving the sentence. Rest of the directions as regards to sentence and default sentence and fine shall remain
unaltered. Bail bond, if any, stands cancelled. Record & Proceedings, if any, be sent back to the trial Court concerned forthwith.