AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
A.S. Bains, J.—The Appellant was convicted u/s 366 of the Indian Penal Code for a period of six months by the learned Sessions Judge, Ambala, vide his judgment dated 20th February 1978. He has challenged his conviction and sentence by way of this appeal.
It is observed by the learned Sessions Judge while considering the quantum of sentence that the offence is just litle more than a lec-hnical offence because of the character of the prosecutrix according to the medical evidence, she was accustomed to sexual intercourse and her vagina was fully developed and that it was a case of consent. Since the prosecutrix was less than 18 years of age, therefore, he convicted the Appellant for technical offence.
Mr Sandhu, learned Counsel for the Appellant did not argue on merits but prayed that the sentence may be reduced to that already undergone.
I have parured(sic) the record. He is the first offender. His age at the time of recording his statement u/s 313, Code of Criminal Procedure is recorded as 22 years. The offence took place in October, 1976. His statement was recorded on 8th February, 1978(sic). This means that the age of the Appellant at the time of the commission of offence was less than 20 years.
In Brij Lal Sud and Another Vs. The State of Punjab, Supreme Court has observed that it is not necessary to insist on the full sentence of six months and the sentence already undergone was considered sufficient. In that case also the accussed was sentenced to six months R.I. under saction 366 Indian Penal Code Accordingly, I am of the view that the ends of justice will be amply met if his sentence is reduced to that already undergone. It is ordered accordingly.
Except for the alteration in the sentence, as indicated above, the appeal fails and is dismissed.