K.S. Ahluwalia, J.@mdashThe present appeal has been preferred by Balkar Singh, Gurdarshan Singh and Sewa Singh appellants, all residents of village Bassian, District Ropar. All of them have been convicted and sentenced by the learned Sessions Judge, Ropar as under:
|
Balkar Singh Sewa Singh & Gurdarshan Singh |
U/S 366 Indian Penal Code |
RI for 2 years each and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- each, in default of payment of fine to undergo further RI for six months. |
|
Balkar Singh |
354/34 Indian Penal Code |
for one year Sewa Singh, 354 Indian Penal Code, RI for one year |
|
Gurdarshan Singh |
376 Indian Penal Code |
RI for five years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/-, in default of payment of which to further undergo RI for one year. |
Mr. Ghai appearing for the appellants at the very out-set states that he accepts the prosecution version and does not intend to address arguments on merits.
2. In view of the statement made by Mr. Ghai, this Court need not delve into the facts and merits of the appeal. Suffice it to say, the charge of gang rape failed before the trial Court and only Gurdarshan Singh appellant was held guilty u/s 376 IPC and has been sentenced to undergo RI for 5 years and a fine of Rs. 1,000/''-, though the maximum sentence prescribed for rape is 7 years. The trial Court has imposed lesser sentence upon him only on the ground that he was 16 years of age at the time of occurrence. It is also not disputed that Paramjit Kaur prosecutrix was 17 years of age at that time.
3. Mr. Ghai states that two of the appellants namely Balkar Singh and Sewa Singh, who have been acquitted of the charge of rape, are the first cousins of Gurdarshan Singh, who was convicted of the offence of rape. He states that from the impugned judgment itself, it is evident that Paramjit Kaur prosecutrix was 17 years of age and Gurdarshan Singh appellant, who had just crossed his adolescence and had entered into teens, was few months above 16 years of age. As such, it was an offence by the teenagers. Mr. Ghai has relied upon a Supreme Court judgment rendered in the State of Himachal Pradesh v. Mango Ram, 2003 (3) RCR ( Crl.) 752 , wherein though the appeal was dismissed yet the sentence was reduced to the period already undergone, keeping in view the fact that both i.e. prosecutrix and the accused were teenagers and immature. Mr. Ghai prays that in the instant case also the appellants be dealt with leniently in the matter of sentence. He further states that in the present case FIR was recorded on 7-1-1990 and a period of more than 17 years has elapsed. During this period the appellants have settled in their life and have taken to their avocation and have the responsibility of their families also. It is further stated that after 17 years of the occurrence, sending the appellants back to jail will serve no useful purpose especially when they were convicted on 23.10.1990 and were released on bail on 11-1-1991. Therefore, they have already undergone about one year of the sentence.
4. The learned State counsel has stated that though Balkar Singh and Sewa Singh may be dealt with leniently but no leniency should visit Gurdarshan Singh, who has committed rape upon a young girl of 17 years.
5. This Court is conscious of the fact that while acquitting Balkar Singh and Sewa Singh of the charge of rape, the learned trial Courat has held that no gang rape has been committed. Balkar Singh and Sewa Singh were aged 16 and 19 years respectively at that time. They have undergone about one year of the actual sentence. Therefore, in the totality of the circumstances, the sentence qua Balkar Singh and Sewa Singh appellants is reduced to the period already undergone.
6. However, since Gurdarshan Singh has committed the offence of rape and the trial Court has already observed that he was 16 years of age at the time of occurrence. A period of 17 years has elapsed and since then he has suffered protracted trial. However, ends of justice would be met in case the sentence imposed u/s 376 IPC is reduced from 5 years to 3 years, especially when the trial Court has also not awarded maximum prescribed sentence of 7 years. The observations of Hon''ble Apex Court in various pronouncements to the effect that the cases of offence by the teenagers of immature age should be dealt with leniently, persuaded this Court to reduce the sentence of Gurdarshan Singh appellant.
7. Order accordingly.
8. Except with the modification in the quantum of sentences of all the three appellants, as indicated hereinabove, the present appeal stands dismissed.
