Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

1. This appeal is a telling example of how the delay in hearing of a conviction appeal deprives a convict of his right to persuade the Court to reduce the sentence, if not the right to declare him as innocent, and thus render the right of appeal illusory. The appellant has already been released on 11.10.2002.

2. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 11.10.1995 rendered by the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Jamnagar in Sessions Case No. 55 of 1995 convicting the appellant-accused of the offences punishable under Sections 363, 366, 366A and 376 IPC and sentencing the appellant to undergo RI for 3 years and fine of Rs.5,000/- in default RI for one year for the offence punishable under Section 363 IPC; RI for 3 years and fine of Rs.5,000/- in default RI for one year for the offence punishable under Section 366A IPC; and RI for 8 years and fine of Rs.10,000/- in default RI for 2 years for the offence punishable under Section 376 IPC. The learned Sessions Judge also directed that all the sentences shall run concurrently. The learned Sessions Judge further directed that compensation of Rs.15,000/shall be paid to victim Madhuben, if fine is recovered. The learned Sessions Judge, however,acquitted the appellant of the offence punishable under Section 380 read with Section 109 IPC.

18. As far as the offence punishable under Section 366A IPC is concerned, we are surprised to find that the learned Sessions Judge has convicted the appellant of the said offence when it was not even the prosecution case that the appellant had any intent that Madhuben may be forced or seduced to illicit intercourse with another person.

Sections 366 and 366A IPC read as under :-

"Kidnapping, abducting or inducing woman to compel her marriage, etc.
Procuration of minor girl.
366A. Whoever, by any means whatsoever, induces any minor girl under the age of eighteen years to go from any place or to do any act with intent that such girl may be, or knowing that it is likely that she will be, forced or seduced to llicit intercourse with another person, shall be punishable with imprisonment which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine."

When the language of Section 366A is contrasted with the language of Section 366, it is clear that Section 366A will be attracted only when the accused induces a minor girl to go from any place with intent that such girl may be, or knowing that it is likely that she will be, forced or seduced to illicit intercourse with another person, meaning thereby with a person other than the accused. The prosecution has not even alleged any such case, much less led any evidence, to show that the appellant had induced Madhuben to go from Mithapur with intent that Madhuben may be forced or seduced to llicit intercourse with another person. As already indicated earlier, in our view, the appellant had not induced Madhuben to leave her father's custody, but Madhuben had gone on her own. Hence, even otherwise, there could not be any question of applying the provisions of Section 366A.

20. Coming to the question of sentence, once the appellant has been found to be guilty of offence punishable under Section 376 IPC, the learned Sessions Judge could have imposed the sentence of imprisonment for a period of not less than seven years or upto ten years or even for life and also to impose fine.

The learned Sessions Judge has imposed the sentence of eight years and has also imposed fine of Rs.10,000/- for the offences punishable under Section 376 and Rs.5,000/- each for the offences punishable under Sections 363 and 366A. As already indicated above, conviction for the offence punishable under Sections 363, 366 and 366A IPC is not sustainable and, therefore, the question of imposing any fine would not survive. However, we cannot help observing that in the facts and circumstances of the case where the girl himself had left the house with a sum of Rs.3,000/- and the appellant had no money of his own, there was no justification for imposing the fine of Rs.20,000/- and to impose the sentence of four years in default for non payment of fine of Rs.20,000/-. In the facts and circumstances of the case, where the appellant-accused had no means and had no money even to take the girl he loved to another place with his own money, imposing such a fine and also passing the order of sentence of four years in default for non payment of fine meant that the learned Sessions Judge had imposed the sentence of 12 years on a 19 year old boy who was joined by a girl aged 14 years on her own as indicated earlier and who was a consenting party. Though her consent would not absolve the appellant of the criminal liability for the statutory offence, that did have relevance to the sentence to be inflicted on the appellant.