AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Petitioner is the complainant of S.T. No. 55/1989 decided on 25 t h September, 1996 by 1 s t A.S.J, Seoni, wherein the accused/respondent No. 1 has been held convicted for offence under Section 376 of I.P.C and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for five years and fine of Rs.200/- and in lieu of fine, additional simple imprisonment for two months.
The petitioner/complainant has filed this revision for enhancing the sentence.
It would be appropriate to mention here that the prosecutrix/petitioner was allegedly ravished by the respondent- worker Banjhal Lodge, Seoni. When the prosecutrix and his uncle D.P. Kurve checked in the restaurant on 22.04.1989.
The prosecution story is that the prosecutrix was having illicit relationship with her "Foofa" ( mama in Marathi) who was accompanying to Betul from Chhapare. They stayed at Seoni for they did not get bus to Betul. Hence, they checked in to a lodge, called "Banjhal lodge." The accused/worker of the lodge allegedly came into the room threatening with a knife and alleging commission of the illicit relationship, committed rape with the prosecutrix. Subsequently, the prosecutrix along with her uncle D.P. Kurve lodged a report at Police Station Seoni. The Inspector of Police, examined as P.W 8 in S.T. No. 55/1989 allegedly took the prosecutrix to the same lodge and committed rape with the prosecutrix in the same room. However, the accused/Sub-Inspector of Police was acquitted in S.T. No. 17/1992 vide judgment dated 25.09.1995. The prosecutrix contended that in the present case, the learned trial Court, instead of sentencing the accused/respondent No. 1 for seven years rigorous imprisonment which is the minimum sentence prescribed under Section 376 of I.P.C, has sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for five years only and imposed fine of Rs.200/- and in lieu of fine additional simple imprisonment for two months, which is not proper. She claimed that the learned trial Court did not consider that she was raped by the accused in front of her uncle.
The proviso of Section 376 of I.P.C provides that the Court for adequate and special reasons to be mentioned in the judgment may impose a sentence of imprisonment for a term less than seven years. The learned trial Court has considered the circumstances that the prosecutrix was having illicit relationship with her uncle, took the advantage of committing the crime. Though he has committed the crime, but he had suffered the rigor of the trial for seven years and he is the first offender, hence, the sentence of ten years has been reduced to five years rigorous imprisonment keeping in view the financial condition of the accused/respondent No. 1.
In the circumstances of the case, this court do not think it proper to interfere with the order of sentence. Hence, this revision is dismissed.