The State of Madhya Pradesh vs Raju

B.D. Rathi, J.—Heard on I.A. No. 12306/11, which is an application for condonation of delay u/s 5 of the Limitation Act. As per Office note appeal is barred by 80 days.

Looking to the facts mentioned in the application, application is allowed and delay is condoned.

Heard on admission.

Appeal has been preferred by the State u/s 377 of the Code of Criminal Procedure ("Code" for short) against the sentence on the ground of its inadequacy.

Appellant-State is aggrieved with the sentence passed by Sessions Judge, Burhanpur, in Session Trial No. 46/2010 on 3/2/2011, whereby learned trial Court has convicted respondent Raju u/s 376(2)(f) of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as the "IPC") and sentence of ten years'' rigorous imprisonment with fine stipulation has been imposed.

As per the prosecution story, on 16/6/10 in the afternoon, prosecutrix, aged about 7 years, was subjected to rape by her stepfather Raju when her mother Ranjita while going to Government Hospital for treatment, had left her with him.

Learned Deputy Advocate General has submitted that offence of rape was committed by the respondent with his minor step-daughter. Nothing could be more flagitious and disdainful than the act committed by the respondent. Therefore, he submitted, that the sentence passed by the trial Court was on a lower side, and insufficient and, accordingly, the same may be enhanced to the maximum prescribed for the offence.

Having regard to the arguments advanced by learned Deputy Advocate General, we have gone through the judgment and sentence passed by the trial Court.

We cannot overlook the discretion given by the legislature to the trial Court as enumerated in proviso to Section 376(2) of the IPC, whereby the learned trial Court, exercising its discretion, may award less than the minimum prescribed sentence of 10 years as well. Moreover, a blend of deterrence and reformation can be seen in Indian Jurisprudence, and, accordingly, in our considered opinion, rigorous imprisonment of ten years to the respondent is sufficient, more so in view of the fact that he had no criminal antecedents.

Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the considered view that sentence passed by the learned trial Court is just and proper. There is no ground for its enhancement. The appeal, therefore, stands dismissed in limine.