U.V. Bakre, J.@mdashThis appeal is filed by the accused who has been convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment and fine of Rs. 2,00,000/- in default further two years rigorous imprisonment, for the offence punishable u/s 8 (2) of the Goa Children''s Act, 2003 ("said Act" for short), by Judgment and order dated 29/09/2008/06/10/2008, passed by the learned President of the Children''s Court for the State of Goa, at Panaji ("trial judge", for short) in Special Case no. 12 of 2007.
2. The accused was tried for the offence, of grave sexual assault described u/s 2(y)(i) of the said Act read with rape described u/s 375 of the Indian Penal Code (I.P.C.), punishable u/s 8(2) of the said Act read with section 376 of I.P.C., committed against the prosecutrix, a minor girl of the age of about 7 years.
3. The case of the prosecution, briefly stated, is as under: The prosecutrix (PW-4) was residing on rental basis, along with her parents namely the mother (PW-3) and father, in the third room of the chawl, belonging to Shri Surendra Gawas (PW-11). The accused was staying along with Rana Ram Purohit (PW-1) and his wife, Mrs. Divya Purohit (PW-2), in room no. 5 of the same chawl. PW-1 who runs the business of preparing and selling sweets, has a mithai bhatti adjacent to and behind his room. On 13/04/2007 at about 19.30 hours, the prosecutrix had gone behind the said mithai bhatti in order to collect the clothes which were put on the iron wire/rope for drying. At that time, the accused who was there, came near the prosecutrix, caught her hand, pulled her, forcibly laid her on the ground, pulled her underwear half way, also lowered his half pant and inserted his penis into her vagina. At that time, PW-3 reached there and she pulled the accused after which the accused ran away. The husband of PW-3 was not at home and PW-3 phoned him and informed about the incident and called him home. The husband of PW-3 came home at about 9.15 p.m. and phoned the police at Usgaon Tisk outpost. P W- 9, Shri Nilesh Bhamaikar of Ponda Police Station was at police outpost at Usgaon Tisk when the said telephone call was received by P.C. Masurkar from the father of the prosecutrix informing that one Rajasthani boy, who is his neighbour namely Dhannaram Bhill (Accused) had committed rape on his 7 years old daughter and ran away. A station diary entry about the said information was made vide S.D.E. No. 84 and the police team left for verification of the facts.
4. On the same day i. e. on 13/4/2007 at about 22.45 hours, P.W. 3, mother of the prosecutrix lodged report at Ponda Police Station which report is at Exhibit 34. An offence vide Ponda Police Station Crime No. 75/07 u/s 376 of I.P.C. and section 8 of the said Act was registered by PW-13 P.S.I. Sudesh Velip. The prosecutrix (PW-4) was sent for medical examination at Goa Medical College Hospital, Bambolim - Goa. In the meantime, on 13/4/2007, the accused was apprehended and arrest panchanama ( Exhibit 58) was drawn by PW-13, in the presence of the two Panch witnesses. The accused was also sent for medical examination at Goa Medical College Hospital, Bambolim-Goa. PW-5, Dr. E.J. Rodrigues examined the prosecutrix as well as the accused, on 14/4/2007 at 1.45 a.m. and 3.00 a.m., respectively. The report of medical examination in sexual offences, pertaining to the prosecutrix, is at Exhibit 40 whereas that pertaining to the accused is at Exhibit 42. At the request of PW-5, the blood of the prosecutrix and also that of the accused was examined for ascertainment of the blood group. The certificate of Dr. Sanjay Korgaonkar regarding the blood group of the prosecutrix is at Exhibit 41 and that pertaining to the blood group of the accused is at Exhibit 43. On 14/4/2007, between 05.20 hours and 06.00 hours, the Panchanama of the attachment of the clothes, worn by the accused, was drawn by PW-13 in the presence of PW-6 and another panch witness, which Panchanama is at Exhibit 60. On the same day, between 09.15 hours to 10.15 hours, the Panchanama of scene of offence/sketch (Exhibit 49 Colly) was drawn by PW-10, P.I. Manoj Mardolkar, in the presence of PW-6, Shri Shivanand G. Dangui and another Panch witness. The complainant i.e. PW-3 produced the clothes of the prosecutrix which were worn by her at the time of the incident and the said clothes were attached under a panchanama, drawn by PW-10, which is at Exh.50, in the presence of the same PW-6, Shri Shivanand G. Dangui and another Panch witness. The statement of various witnesses including those of PW-1, PW-2, PW-4, PW8 ( Shri Sarvan Singh), and PW-11 were recorded by PW-10. On 20/04/2007, at the request of PW-10, a sketch of the scene of offence was drawn by the Draughtsman of P.W.D. Ponda, which sketch is a part of Exhibit 63 colly. On 23/04/2007, the accused was again referred to Goa Medical College, Bombolim, by P.I., Shri Manjunath Dessai (PW-12), for ascertaining his age. Dr. Girish Kamat examined the accused and report of medical examination for assessment of age is a part of Exhibit 47 Colly. On 29/04/2007, the exhibits preserved during the medical examination of the prosecutrix and of the accused were forwarded by PW-12 to the Superintendent of Police, CID, Crime Branch, Panaji with the request to forward the same to Serologist, C.F.S.L., Hyderabad for examination. On 02/05/2007, PW-3 produced the birth certificate of the prosecutrix, before PW-12, which is at Exhibit 33. On 09/05/2007, the other exhibits attached during the course of investigation were forwarded by PW-12, through Superintendent of Police, CID, Crime Branch, Panaji, to C.F.S.L. Hyderabad for examination. On 12/05/2007, at the request of PW-12, the Special Judicial Magistrate, Ponda recorded the statement of witnesses u/s 164 of Code of Criminal Procedure. After completing the investigation, a charge sheet came to be filed by PW12 before the Trial Judge.
5. The charge was duly framed and explained to the accused. He pleaded not guilty. The prosecution examined all together 13 witnesses in support of its case who are already referred to above except one social worker namely Smt. Nayan Borkar, examined as PW-7.
6. The case of the accused was of denial simplicitor. He did not examine any witness.
7. Upon consideration of the entire evidence on record, the learned trial Judge, held that the prosecutrix was a "child" as defined under the said Act whereas the accused was above 18 years of age on the date of the incident. He further held that PW-4, the prosecutrix and PW-3, the mother of the prosecutrix are truthful witnesses and that the medical evidence adduced by PW-5, pertaining to the prosecutrix as well as the accused, fully supports the version of PW-3 and PW-4. The learned trial Judge further held that the accused has not proved that on 13/04/2007 or prior to that date, he was having any mental abnormality. Consequently, the trial Judge held that the prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubts. The accused therefore came to be convicted and sentenced for the offence punishable u/s 8 (2), of the said Act, as already stated earlier.
8. Learned Advocate Shri, Nigel Da Costa Frias argued on behalf of the accused whereas learned Public Prosecutor, Shri C.A. Ferreira argued on behalf of the State.
9. We have perused the entire record and proceedings.
10. The first point to be considered is whether the prosecutrix is proved to be a "Child" as defined under the said Act. Indisputably, the prosecutrix was born on 8/8/1999. The above fact as stated by PW-3, the mother of the prosecutrix, has not been denied. In support of her statement, PW-3 has also produced the birth certificate of the prosecutrix, at Exhibit 33, which confirms that the prosecutrix was born on 8/8/1999. PW-4, the prosecutrix was examined by the trial judge on 17/3/2008 and she gave her age as 9 years and has stated that she was born on 8th August. A "Child",as per section 2(d) of the said Act, means any person who has not completed eighteen years of age unless any other law in force specifies otherwise or unless otherwise indicated in specific provisions in the said Act. In terms of the proviso to said section 2(d), in so far as a victim in an offence of rape is concerned, "Child" means any person who has not completed sixteen years of age. The prosecutrix, being below 16 years of age, as on the date of the incident, was a "Child" covered by the said Act.
11. In the chargesheet, the accused is stated to be above 18 years of age. In his plea in answer to the charge, recorded on 28/12/2007, however, the accused gave his age as 18 years. At the request of the police, Dr. Girish Kamat, the Assistant Lecturer of Forensic Medicine, Goa Medical College had examined the accused on 23/4/2007, for ascertaining his age. The report of medical examination for assessment of age in males in respect of the accused, prepared and signed by said Dr. Girish Kamat is a part of Exhibit 47 colly., and the said report duly proves that the age of the accused as on 23/4/2007 was above 18 years and below 20 years.
12. In his cross-examination, PW-5, Dr. E. J. Rodrigues has stated as follows :-
In Goa Medical College, while determining age, we take into consideration physical examination, radiological examination and dental examination and as such, the age determined by us is more or less accurate, with a marginal variation of plus minus six months, if so stated in the report.
In the present case, as per the report under Exbt.47 Colly. the physical, dental and radiological examination was carried out and the age was reported as above 18 and below 20. To the question that on exbt. 46, against the entry of Sr. No. FM/GMC, there is a written note of "age -18", and whether this means that the age of the accused was 18. I say that the said number 18 refers to the case no. for examination of age as on that day it does not refer to the age of the accused.
13. From the above evidence of PW-5, read with the medical report of Dr. Girish Kamat, which is a part of Exhibit 47 Colly, it is duly proved that accused was above 18 years and below 20 years of age as on 23/04/2007. The date of the incident is 13/04/2007. No suggestion has been put to any of the prosecution witnesses, including the medical officer, that the accused was below 18 years of age as on the date of incident. As per section 2(l) of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of children) Act 2000, "Juvenile in conflict with law" means juvenile who is alleged to have committed an offence and has not completed eighteenth year of age as on the date of commission of such offence. The accused has not raised the claim of juvenility either before the trial court or before this court. In view of the discussion supra, it can be said that the accused was not a juvenile as on the date of incident.
14. After appearing before the trial Judge, at the request of Superintendent Judicial Lockup, Margaon, the accused was admitted to I.P.H.B., Bambolim. On 17/07/2007, Dr. Anil Rane had examined the accused and he found that the accused showed signs of psychotic behaviour and therefore he was admitted to I.P.H.B. Bambolim for evaluation and treatment. By certificate dated 07/09/2007, which is at Exhibit 12, Dr. Anil Rane has certified that the accused had acute schizophrenia-like psychotic episode with mild mental retardation but he was fit to stand trial and does not need to be admitted to the hospital. The accused was discharged after treatment on 11/10/2007. The accused was again admitted to I.P.H.B., Bambolim on 18/10/2007 and Dr. Anil Rane has stated that on 18/11/2007 the accused attempted to commit suicide by hanging in the toilet and was hospitalized in Goa Medical College and discharged on 21/11/2007. By medical report dated 30/11/2007, Dr. Anil Rane certified that the patient had no significant symptoms and maintaining well on treatment and is fit to stand trial. It was only thereafter that the charge was framed and the trial was conducted. Admittedly, the accused was staying with PW-1 and PW-2 in their room. A specific question was asked to PW-1 and PW-2, in their cross- examination, as to whether the accused showed any signs of mental abnormality. Both have stated that they never noticed any abnormal behaviour on the part of the accused. As has been rightly held by learned trial Judge, the accused did not produce any evidence at all to prove that as on date of offence or prior to that, he, by reason of unsoundness of mind was incapable of knowing the nature of the act or that he was doing what is either wrong or contrary to law. The accused, therefore, is not entitled to benefit of exception u/s 84 of I.P.C..
15. The point that now remains to be considered is whether the prosecution has proved that the accused had sexual intercourse with the prosecutrix. The prosecutrix (PW-4), before being examined, was duly tested for her competency and the learned trial judge has recorded a finding in her deposition that she appears to be a competent witness as she gave logical answers to the questions put to her and therefore was allowed to be examined by the prosecution.
16. As far as the offence is concerned, PW-4 has deposed as follows :
On 13.4.2007, at around 7.30 p.m. my mother had started the washing machine to wash our clothes. I had put my playing clothes to dry on one aluminum wire near the mitthai batti on the side of our chawl and I told my mother at 7.45 p.m. that I am going to collect the clothes and I left from my house.
At that time when I was near the batti removing my clothes from the wire, one Dhaniya, caught hold of my right hand and pulled me and forcibly put me on the ground. He then pulled down my cheddi upon my knees and lowered his half pant and put his ''nono'' in my ''nuni'', by lying down on me.
In the meantime, my mother came searching for me by calling out "Mallika" and on seeing the said Dhaniya on me, she pulled the said Dhaniya. He went running and my mother alongwith me followed Dhaniya who had gone to the room of the mithai owner. We also went to the room and on seeing my mother, he pushed her and ran away.
17. PW-3, the mother of the prosecutrix, as far as the her knowledge about the offence, is concerned, has deposed as follows :
On 13/4/2007, when I was at home at around 7.30 p.m. I was busy washing our clothes in our washing machine. My daughter Mallika was at home and around 7.45 p.m., she told me that she is going to collect the clothes which were put for drying behind the mitthai batti near the last room of the chawl.
As she had not come back within 5 minutes, I came out of our room and went near the mitthai batti to search for my daughter. I saw that the clothes of my daughter were still hanging on the rope. There was a water barrel near the mitthai batti and behind the barrel, I noticed that one man was lying down on my daughter and having forcible sexual intercourse with her. On seeing the same I pulled the said man and then I identified him as one Dhanaram. I say that he is the accused present in the Court today, whom I identify as the said Dhanaram.
The accused had gone running towards the room of PW1 Rana Ram Purohit. I followed him towards the said room but he pushed me and ran away. Mallika was along with me. In the room, the wife of PW1 was present, namely PW 2 Divya Purohit. She disclosed to me that the surname of Dhanaram as Bhill, of 21 years of age and that he is native of Rajasthan.
18. PW-2, Smt. Divya Purohit has deposed as follows:
About 11 months back at around 7.45 p.m, the accused had told me that he was going to wash the barrel near our Mitthai Bhatti, near our room. Within a few minutes, the accused came running back, in a nervous condition. After him, the lady Babi who stays in the third room of our chawl came in our room and on seeing Babi the accused pushed her and ran away towards Shaila Bar and at that time he was wearing a grey colour half pant. I can identify the same if shown to me. Babi told me that the accused had committed rape on her daughter, Ms. Mallika, behind our Mitthai Bhatti. I saw Mallika crying and bleeding on her thighs and her green colour half pant was stained with blood.
19. A scrutiny of the cross examination of the above witnesses reveals that they are truthful and wholly reliable witnesses who have stood firmly to the test of cross-examination. It is well settled that the testimony of a child witness can be relied upon, if after careful scrutiny of her evidence, the court comes to the conclusion that there is ring of truth in it. We have carefully evaluated the testimony of PW4 and we are satisfied that it inspires confidence.
20. It was contended by learned counsel for the accused that there is delay in lodging the report. The report lodged by PW-3 with Ponda police is at Exhibit 34. PW-3 has corroborated the said complaint on all material aspects. The offence was registered at 22.45 hours on 13/4/2007. The delay, if any, has been satisfactorily explained by PW-3. PW-3, as stated by her, had waited for her husband to come home. She had told him about the incident on his mobile. After the husband of PW-3 came home, he phoned the police at Usgaon Tisk outpost who arrived there and advised to lodge report. This conduct of PW-3 and her husband was most natural. The above facts are confirmed by the evidence of PW-9, Shri Nilesh Bhamaikar, the police officer attached to Ponda Police Station and posted at Usgaon Tisk outpost, at the relevant time. No discrepancy has been pointed out by the accused, in the deposition of PW-3 vis-a-vis the report.
21. No omission/contradiction has been brought on record in the depositions of PW-2 and PW-4, with relation to their police statements. The statements of PW-2 and PW-4 recorded by Special Judicial Magistrate, Ponda, u/s 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr. P. C.) are on record as Exhibits 29 and 36 respectively. It was contended by learned Advocate Shri Nigel Costa that these statements were recorded on 6/7-7-2007 though the alleged incident had occurred on 13-4-2007 and this inordinate delay creates doubt about the truthfulness of the said witnesses. The fact remains that the statements of these witnesses, u/s 161 of Cr. P. C, were recorded by, P.I., Mardolkar (PW-10) on 14/4/2007 itself. The statement of the prosecutrix was recorded in the presence of NGO, Nayan Borkar (PW-7), who has confirmed as to what PW-4 stated to her. There is absolutely no reason for these witnesses to implicate the accused falsely in such heinous crime of rape.
22. The learned advocate Mr. Nigel Da Costa Frias, on behalf of the accused, contented that the prosecutrix has spoken about the accused putting his "nono" in her "nuni" without explaining as to which parts of the body she is referring to. He further argued that there is nothing on record to know the meaning of the said words "nono" and "nuni". In this regard, it is seen that the accused, in the cross-examination of PW-4, has put suggestions to deny that he had put his "nono" in her "nuni" after laying her down and further that there was any bleeding from her "nuni". The prosecutrix knew as to what she meant by using the said words and the meaning of the said words was understood by the accused and finally the learned trial judge, who had conducted the trial and recorded the evidence had understood the meaning of the said words. Besides the above, the testimony of PW-3, about subsequent events, reveals as to what the prosecutrix meant to say. PW-3 has deposed as under:
I took my daughter Mallika to our room. Over there she told me that the accused had caught her hand and had forcibly taken her near the mitthai batti, he lowered her half pant and thereafter lowered his pant and inserted his urinary part in her urinary part, near the barrel. I noticed that there was blood on the underwear of pista colour of my daughter Mallika. My daughter had told me that as the accused was lying on her, she was suffocated and it was difficult for her to shout. I had seen the incident of intercourse on my daughter by the accused, from the illumination of the street light and the bulb light. I had also seen the half pant of my daughter below her knee level at the time of the incident. I had also seen the accused wearing a half pant of light blue colour.
23. In view of the above, there should be no doubt about the fact which the prosecutrix wanted the trial court to perceive/understand from the words used by her in her testimony. Besides, there is on record the medical evidence, to prove that there was recent penetration, pertaining to the prosecutrix as well as the accused.
24. PW-5, Dr. E. J. Rodrigues, of Goa Medical College, had examined the prosecutrix on 14/04/2007 at 1.45 a.m. The report of the medical examination is at Exhibit 40. PW 5 has stated that he noticed a bruise reddish and fresh of 1.5cms x 0.5 cms at 6 O''clock position of the hymeneal opening and it was tender to touch. PW-5 has specifically stated that on physical and genital examination of the said victim girl, he found that there was evidence of recent penetration. PW-5 had examined the accused on the same day i.e. on 14/04/2007 at 3.00 a.m. and the report of the medical examination is at Exhibit 42. PW-5 has stated that from the physical and genital examination of the accused, there was nothing to suggest that he was incapable of sexual intercourse. PW-5 has stated that on examination of his penis, he found blood stains with clots present all around the glans. There was tear of the frenulum of his penis of 8 x 2 mm with bleeding on touch and tender. PW-5 has specifically stated that on physical and genital examination of the accused, he found that there was evidence of recent penetration. In the cross-examination of PW-5, there is nothing which can render his findings and opinion unreliable.
25. Learned Advocate Mr. Nigel Da Costa Frias argued that if really intercourse was committed by the accused on the prosecutrix, who was only about eight years of age, then she was bound to sustain injuries on posterior parts of her body namely back, thighs, legs, etc. He pointed out that in the present case the medical officer (PW-5) has clearly stated that there were no other injuries on the body of the prosecutrix. In this regard, the outer clothes of the prosecutrix were not removed. Only her underwear was lowered down. PW-1 has stated that she noticed bleeding on the thighs of the prosecutrix. But, it is true that according to PW-5, there were no injuries on her body. A perusal of the evidence of PW-6, the contents of the panchanama/sketch of the scene of offence (Exhibit 49 colly), and photographs of the scene of offence at Exhibit 61 colly. reveals that the site of the incident was smooth and not having big stones or rough surface. The site was of soil with small stones. Besides that PW-5, in his cross-examination, has stated that on medical examination of the victim, it was found that there was no evidence of complete penetration resulting in sexual intercourse but there was evidence of partial penetration. The evidence of PW-3 and PW 4 also reveals that the main incident of intercourse did not continue for a long time but for a very short time. In the circumstances above, merely because there were no other injuries sustained by the prosecutrix, it cannot be said that there was no rape.
26. As per section (2) (uv) of the said Act, "rape" means rape as defined in section 375 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (Act V of 1860). As per explanation to said section 375 of IPC, penetration is sufficient to constitute the sexual intercourse necessary to the offence of rape. In other words, to constitute the offence of rape it is not at all necessary that there should be complete penetration coupled with emission of semen and rupture of hymen. Mere penetration by penis in vagina is an offence of rape. In view of clause six of Section 375 of I.P.C., sexual intercourse with a girl below sixteen is an offence of rape, no matter whether the victim girl consented or not consented to sexual intercourse.
27. There is reliable evidence on record to prove that, at the time of the incident, prosecutrix was wearing T-shirt of bottle green colour which is M.O. No. 5 and which has been duly identified by PW- 3 and PW-4. PW-4 has stated that there was blood on her T-shirt. The said T-shirt was produced by PW-3 before the police in the presence of Pancha witnesses, one of them being PW-6, and it was attached under the Panchanama which is at Exhibit 50. The evidence of PW-6 proves that the said T-shirt was duly packed and sealed. PW-6 has stated that on the front part of the said T-shirt, there were blood stains. The panchanama also mentions this fact. PW-10, the Police Officer who attached the said T-shirt, has also deposed that there were blood stains and soil on the said T-shirt. As per the report of examination issued by the C.F.S.L., Hyderabad, which is at Exh.70, human blood stains were detected in the said Exhibit 5 i.e. the T-shirt of prosecutrix. This circumstance strengthens the testimony of the prosecutrix.
28. The above evidence on record, as contended by the learned Public Prosecutor, sufficiently proves the case of the prosecution regarding rape, by the accused who was above 18 years of age, on the prosecutrix, who was a "Child", being below 8 years of age. Section 2(y)(i) of the said Act provides that "Grave Sexual Assault" covers different types of intercourse; vaginal or oral or anal, use of objects with children, forcing minors to have sex with each other, deliberately causing injury to the sexual organs of children, making children pose for pornographic photos or films, and also includes rape". Therefore the offence committed by the accused falls under "Grave Sexual Assault".
29. Coming to the quantum of sentence, Section 8(2) of the said Act, as far as grave sexual assault is concerned, provides as under :
Whoever commits any Grave Sexual Assault shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term that shall not be less than 10 years but which may extend to life imprisonment and shall be liable to a fine of Rs. 2,00,000/-. Statement of child victim shall be treated on par with the statement of a child rape victim u/s 375 of the IPC, as laid down by the Supreme Court of India.
30. Relying upon the judgment of the Apex Court in Appeal (Cri.) 1658 of 2007, between "State of Madhya Pradesh V/s. Babulal" the trial judge held that no leniency can be shown in such cases and that such accused have to be treated with a heavy hand. The above case is reported in [
In order to exercise the discretion of reducing the sentence the statutory requirement is that the court has to record "adequate and special reasons" in the judgment and not fanciful reasons which would permit the court to impose a sentence less than the prescribed minimum. The reason has not only to be adequate but also special. What is adequate and special would depend upon several factors and no straitjacket formula can be indicated.
31. Shri Nigel Costa, the learned counsel for the accused, towards persuading the court for taking a lenient view against the accused, pointed out the following grounds:
(a) The medical reports of Dr. Anil Rane prove that the accused has some mental problem;
(b) The accused was young of about 19 years of age at the time of offence;
(c) The accused has no criminal antecedents;
(d) There was only slight penetration and the hymen was intact.
(e) The minimum prescribed punishment is 10 years which would be sufficient.
32. As far as Section 376(2)(f) of I.P.C., is concerned, though it is provided that the punishment shall be with rigorous imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than ten years but which may extend to life and also fine, however, the proviso gives a discretion to the Court, for adequate and special reasons to be recorded in the judgment, to impose a sentence of imprisonment of either description for a term of less than ten years. But section 8(2) of the said Act, in so far as the offence of "Grave Sexual Assault" is concerned, does not give any discretion to the court to reduce the sentence of minimum imprisonment and also of fine prescribed therein. Thus, there is no question of reducing the sentence of payment of fine of Rs. 2,00,000/-, which is mandatory. However, as far as the imprisonment is concerned, section 8(2) says that the same shall be of either description for a term that shall not be less than 10 years but which may extend to life imprisonment. Thus, life imprisonment is not mandatory. What is mandatory is minimum imprisonment of ten years. Imprisonment for life means imprisonment for whole of the remaining period of convict''s life, unless the Government passes a separate order remitting the unexpired portion of the sentence. Considering the young age of the accused, deterioration of his mental condition soon after the commission of the offence, that there are no criminal antecedents, that there was slight penetration and the fact that life imprisonment is not compulsory, we are of the view that, in this case, sentence of life imprisonment should be reduced to that of rigorous imprisonment for 12 years.
33. In the result, the appeal is partly allowed. The conviction of the appellant for the offence of "Grave Sexual Assault" punishable u/s 8 (2) of the said Act is maintained. However, the substantive sentence of imprisonment is reduced to 12 years rigorous imprisonment. The fine and in default sentence imposed by the learned trial Judge is maintained. The period of detention undergone by the accused shall be set off in terms of section 428 of Cr.P.C.
Appeal stands disposed of accordingly.
