( 1 ) HEARD Sri Upendra Reddy representing sri M. Subba Reddy, learned counsel representing the appellant/accused and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, sri Md. Osman Saheed. ( 2 ) THIS is a case where bail was declined by this Court as far as back in the year 1998, and since then the accused is languishing in jail. The matter is coming up for final hearing to-day. The journey from Machanderv. State of Hyderabad, Hussainara Khotoon v. Home secretary, State of Bihar, Patna State of maharashtra v. Champalal Punjaji Shah, t. V. Vatheeswaran v. State of T. N. , Sheela barse v. Union of India, Abdul Rehman antulay v. R. S. Nayak, would reflect the settled position that the speedy trial would include speedy disposal of the appeals as well. When liberty of the accused/convict is curtailed by keeping him behind bars due to operation of law, such person is entitled to fundamental rights inclusive of Article 21 of the Constitution of India. There cannot be any doubt that the constitutional right of speedy trial would include in its sweep early disposal of the criminal appeals as well in general, and more so, in appeals against conviction and particularly in cases where the Court refused to enlarge them on bail and those who are unable to be put out of fetters of law though such orders are made, due to certain reasons. More often than not, experience shows that in several criminal appeals, accused would have completed the period of sentence even during the pendency of appeal or almost the sentence would be coming to an end by the time the criminal appeals are taken up for hearing. It is needless to say that though certain appeals are being allowed, the fact remains that the accused have been in jail for want of bail or for other akin reasons. Time and again, Courts have been laying specific guidelines, which are observed more in breach than in compliance, reasons may be numerous, and one may be absence of nexus of strength of judges and pending cases. ( 3 ) JUDGE is accountable to pubic. Personal views of judge may have to yield to judicial discipline, propriety and institutional discipline and independence as well. This is all more necessary to safeguard and maintain independence of judiciary. Judicial accountability is one of the important facets of independent judiciary. ( 3 ) JUDGE is accountable to pubic. Personal views of judge may have to yield to judicial discipline, propriety and institutional discipline and independence as well. This is all more necessary to safeguard and maintain independence of judiciary. Judicial accountability is one of the important facets of independent judiciary. ( 4 ) IT would be always advisable and desirable that the Registry be vigilant in sorting out where accused/convicts are in jail and put the cases relating to them on top priority immediately after the paper books are made ready. Priority to be given in preparation of the records and paper books also in such matters. This will be the healthy procedure and practice and in consonance with the fundamental principles relating to personal liberty as well and the healthy trend to be evolved in the administration of criminal justice. It is no doubt true that in criminal appeals no bail cases would be more before division Bench, but the case would be different as far as criminal appeals before the learned Single Judge is concerned. ( 5 ) RULE 153 of the Criminal Rules of practice dealing with list of cases ready for hearing specifies: a list of cases other than miscellaneous petitions ready for hearing will be exhibited on the notice board and no such case shall ordinarily be posted for hearing within a week of its being so exhibited. ( 6 ) THOUGH Courts are following as practice and procedure to give priority or precedence to such matters, it would be advisable to incorporate specific rules in Criminal Rules of Practice to make out more specific and clear in this regard. Counsel representing such unfortunate convicts also shall not request for adjournments normally in such matters. ( 7 ) THE appellant/accused preferred the present criminal appeal as against the judgment in S. C. No. 138 of 1996 on the file of the Assistant Sessions Judge, Markapur dated 18-06-1998, convicting the appellant/ accused for an offence under Section 376 read with 511 I. P. C and sentencing him to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of eight years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/-, in default, to suffer simple imprisonment for one year and further convicted the appellant/ accused for an offence under Section 306 i. P. C. and sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/-, in default to suffer simple imprisonment for ten months. ( 8 ) SRI Upendra Reddy, learned Counsel representing the appellant/accused would contend that except the evidence of P. W. 2, there is no other evidence available on record and the evidence of P. W. 3, a child witness, cannot be relied upon and hence, the version of the prosecution that there was commission of the offence of rape or an attempt to rape and in consequence of the same the deceased committed suicide, definitely cannot be believed. Learned counsel also would explain that there are certain disputes between the families and in consequence of the same, this case has been foisted. ( 9 ) PER contra, learned Additional Public prosecutor would contend that clear findings had been recorded by the learned Judge while recording the finding that the accused is guilty of the offence under Section 376 read with Section 511 I. P. C. and Section 306 i. P. C. The learned Additional Public prosecutor also would contend that the learned Judge having recorded the findings that the appellant/accused is guilty of grave and serious offences with which he had been charged with and having inflicted heavy and serious punishment, imposing just simple imprisonment would not be in accordance with the exercise of judicial discretion in proper perspective. The learned Additional public Prosecutor would contend that in view of the same, at least for the rest of the period, the sentence may be modified into one of rigorous imprisonment. ( 10 ) HEARD both the Counsel and perused the evidence available on record and also the findings recorded by the learned Judge. ( 11 ) THE Sub-Inspector of Police k. K. Mittal Police Station laid the charge- sheet against the appellant/accused for the offences punishable under Sections 376 read with Sections 511 I. P. C. , 306 and 323 I. P. C. A-2 and A-3 are only charged with section 323 I. P. C. whereas A-1 was charged with Section 376 (1) read with Section 511 i. P. C. ( 12 ) THE learned Judge on appreciation of the evidence of P. Ws. 1 to 10 and Exs. P-1 and P-6 and Exs. D-1 to D-3 and also M. 0. 1, came to the conclusion that A_1 is guilty of the offence under Section 376 (1) read with 511 I. P. C. and 306 I. P. C. The learned Judge having found A-2 and A-3 also guilty under section 323 I. P. C. , released them under section 3 of the Probation of Offenders Act. Aggrieved by the same, this appeal is preferred by the appellant/a-1. ( 13 ) THE case of the prosecution in brief is that on 08-02-1995 at about 9 a. m. the deceased John Kumari aged about 14 years went to the bore well which is situated on the western side of her house to fetch water, and at that time, A-1 followed her, caught hold of her and forcibly took her into the nearby thatched hut belonging to one Sastry to have sexual intercourse with her and that P. W. 2 saw from a distance that some girl was being taken by force, but could not identify, and that p. W. 2 after going to his home enquired his mother about the deceased John Kumari, who informed him that John Kumari went to the bore well to fetch water and on suspicion, p. W. 2 went towards the boring and that on hearing the cries of John Kumari while A-1 was attempting to commit rape on her, p. W. 2 rushed to the hut of Sastry and found the deceased scuffling with A-1, and A-1 was attempting to commit rape on her and P. W. 2 intervened and rescued the deceased John kumari from the hands of A-1 and then the deceased ran away to her home by weeping and after going home, being ashamed of the act perpetrated by A-1 against her, decided to put an end to her life and poured kerosene on her body and set fire to herself and John mary, P. W. 3 having returned from the school found her deceased sister in flames and on hearing the cries of p. W. 3, P. W. 2 along with others rushed to the spot and found the deceased burning in flames, which resulted in her death. ( 14 ) P. W. 2 had reported the matter to the village Administrative Officer, P. W. 1, who informed the same to the police. ( 14 ) P. W. 2 had reported the matter to the village Administrative Officer, P. W. 1, who informed the same to the police. ( 15 ) P. W. 1, the Village Administrative officer, deposed about these aspects and also deposed that Ex. P-1 is the report sent by him to the Sub-Inspector of Police, konkanamitla and on the next day, inquest was held over the dead body of the deceased john Kumari and at thattime himself, Mandal revenue Officer, Sub-Inspector of Police and other villagers were present and the inquestdars were of the opinion that due to the shameful act committed by the accused, the deceased set fire to herself by pouring kerosene and died. Ex. P-2 is the inquest report and he along with Mandal Revenue officer and other villagers signed in it. He further deposed that when observation was made, he along with Mandal Revenue Officer and Sub-Inspector of Police were present at the house of the deceased and M. O. 1, empty kerosene tin was seized. Ex. P-3 is the observation report. ( 16 ) P. W. 2 is the crucial witness, who had deposed what actually had happened on the fateful day. The evidence of P. W. 2 is so natural and convincing and strong reliance was placed by the learned Judge on the evidence of P. W. 2. It may be that P. W. 2 is a close-relative of the deceased, but, however, this is a case where the deceased John kumari was aged about 14 years only at the time of her death. It may be that P. W. 2 is a close-relative of the deceased, but, however, this is a case where the deceased John kumari was aged about 14 years only at the time of her death. This witness further deposed that while he was returning after nature of calls, he noticed one person forcibly taking one girl and when he went to his house, he asked his mother about the whereabouts of his brother s daughter, John kumari, and his mother informed that she went to the bore well to fetch water and then he went to the bore well, which is about 20 houses away from his house and not visible, and that he noticed binde only at the boring and heard the cries of his brother s daughter, john Kumari, from the house of one Sastry, which is nearby to the bore well and then he went to that house and noticed A-1 on the body of the deceased John Kumari and the deceased was on the ground facing upwards and that he noticed A-1 raping his brother s daughter and she was crying and weeping and then he caught hold of the shirt of A-1 and pulled him and found that his brother s daughter s face was oozing with blood and her jacket was torn and then A-1 tried to attack him and when they were quarreling, a-2 and A-3 came there and asked him to leave A-1 and he refused to leave as he raped his brother s daughter. He further deposed that A-1 to A-3 beat him with hands and he fell down and at that time, Lokaiah and Abraham came and separated the accused from him and in the meanwhile, the deceased went away to her house. ( 17 ) P. W. 3, who is the younger sister of the deceased John Kumari, raised cries that john Kumari was burning herself and P. W. 2 along with others rushed to the house and noticed the deceased with burning injuries in front of her house and that the deceased committed suicide being ashamed of A-1 committing rape on her. ( 18 ) P. W. 2 informed the Village administrative Officer about the deceased committing suicide, who reported the matter to the police. This witness was cross- examined at length and Exs. D-1 and D-2 were put to this witness as contradictions. ( 18 ) P. W. 2 informed the Village administrative Officer about the deceased committing suicide, who reported the matter to the police. This witness was cross- examined at length and Exs. D-1 and D-2 were put to this witness as contradictions. ( 19 ) EX. D-1 is the 161 Cr. P. C. statement of P. W. 2, reads as hereunder: "i belong to Christianpalem near naidupet of Konkanamitla Mandal. Myself and my brother Prasad are living jointly. My brother Prasad is working as talayari. To-day i. e. , on 08-02-1995 morning in between 8. 30 a. m. to 9. 00 a. m. , I went to. the trees situated on the east to our village for answering calls of nature. On my return, I noticed one boy was pulling a girl forcibly from boring pipe of drinking water. I did not identify the persons and I went home and when asked my mother about John Kumari, my mother informed me that she went to boring pipe for fetching drinking water. On that on suspicion, I went to pipe, I noticed the cries from the hut belonging to Sastry which situated on the northern side to the boring and I went there and found that Pola Chinnaiah s/o. Jeevaiah of our village was attempting to rape my brother s daughter forcibly. I then rescued John Kumari from the hands of chinnaiah. Chinnaiah fought with me. John Kumari went away by weeping. " ( 20 ) EX. D-2 is the 161 Cr. P. C. statement of P. W. 2, reads as hereunder: "for the insult caused by Chinnaiah, john Kumari felt hurt and being unbearable for the insult, poured kerosene on her person and set fire herself and being unbearable of burns came out of the house and fell down and thereafter died. On that when asked kola Satyam and Kola Adam elder , brother of Chinnaiah that our girl died at the instance of their brother, they beat me with hands, at that time Palakeeti lokaiah, Palakeeti Abraham rescued me from their hands. Later Venkata narayana, VAO of our village came to our village and I apprised the fact. He prepared report and sent it to police. I am apprising the same to you. " ( 21 ) THESE are the contradictions on which some reliance was placed by the counsel representing the appellant. Later Venkata narayana, VAO of our village came to our village and I apprised the fact. He prepared report and sent it to police. I am apprising the same to you. " ( 21 ) THESE are the contradictions on which some reliance was placed by the counsel representing the appellant. ( 22 ) P. W. 3, John Mary, a child witness, the sister of the deceased. The Court was satisfied that the child was intelligent and was giving prompt answers and had recorded her evidence. P. W. 3 had deposed that she went to the school at about 8. 30 a. m. and at that time, her deceased sister went to fetch water and about half an hour after she returned to her house to take drinking water and noticed that her deceased sister s face was oozing with blood and her jacket was also torn and when she asked her sister, she told that when she went to fetch water, A-1 forcibly took her and raped her. This witness deposed "cherichinadu". This witness also deposed what transpired subsequently and how her deceased sister had burnt herself. The evidence of P. W. 3 is so natural and the evidence corroborates the evidence of p. W. 2 in several particulars. ( 23 ) P. W. 4 is the mother of the deceased, who deposed about what had happened on the fateful day. ( 24 ) P. W. 5, Abraham, deposed about what actually had happened and this witness also deposed that when the accused were beating P. W. 2, he along with Lokaiah came and separated them and questioned P. W. 2 as to why they were beating him and then, p. W. 2 informed that A-1 forcibly brought the deceased John Kumari into the house of sastry and raped her and when the same was questioned by P. W. 2, the accused started beating, and in the meanwhile, p. W. 3, John Mary, came and informed that the deceased John Kumari set fire to herself by pouring kerosene and was weeping while informing the said incident. ( 25 ) P. W. 6 simply deposed about the happening of the incident. ( 25 ) P. W. 6 simply deposed about the happening of the incident. ( 26 ) P. W. 7 is the Mandal Revenue Officer, who had conducted inquest over the dead body of the deceased and recorded the opinion to the effect that since the deceased felt ashamed of the act perpetrated by A-1, she had committed suicide. Ex. P-2 is the inquest report. ( 27 ) P. W. 8 is the Police Constable, who had taken the dead body of the deceased john Kumari and produced the same before the post-mortem examination. ( 28 ) P. W. 9 is the doctor, who conducted post-mortem examination and opined that the deceased would appear to have died of nurogenic shock due to burns and this witness also deposed that he received expert opinion stating that the death is not due to poison. ( 29 ) P. W. 10 is the Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police, who deposed about all the details. In the evidence of P. W. 5, no doubt, the contradictions of Section 161 Cr. P. C. statement were marked as Ex. D-3 and these contradictions were put to the Investigating officer. ( 30 ) ON appreciation of the evidence available on record, the learned Judge arrived at a conclusion that the evidence of P. Ws. 2 and 3 is trustworthy and as a consequence of an attempt made to commit rape on the person of the deceased, who was unable to bear the said shame or insult perpetrated against her by the accused, had committed suicide. On a careful scrutiny and analysis of the evidence available on record, this Court is of the considered opinion that the findings recorded by the learned Judge to the effect that appellant/a-1 is guilty of the offence under Section 376 (1) read with 5611 I. P. C. and Section 306 I. P. C. do not sufferfrom any illegality or legal infirmity whatsoever. Hence, the said findings relating to conviction recorded are hereby confirmed. Hence, the said findings relating to conviction recorded are hereby confirmed. ( 31 ) SECTION 53 I. P. C. dealing with punishments reads as hereunder: punishments - The punishments to which offenders are liable under the provisions of this Code are- first-Death; secondly-lmprisonment for life; thirdly-[repealed by Act XVII of 1949] fourthly-lmprisonment, which is of two descriptions namely- (1) Rigorous, that is, with hard labour, (2) Simple; ( 32 ) IN Nadella Venkatakrishna Rao v. State of A. P. , the Apex Court held that the appellant convicted and sentenced for ten years of rigorous imprisonment in awarding punishment, needs for rehabilitation and deterrence to be kept in view and sentence reduced to five years rigorous imprisonment as it may be long enough for correctional treatment. ( 33 ) RELIANCE was also placed on State of gujarat v. Hon ble High Court of Gujaraf. In ramashraya Chakiravarti v. State of M. P. , the Apex Court while dealing with General principles as to punishment held as hereunder:"to adjust the duration of imprisonment to the gravity of a particular offence is not always an easy task. Sentencing involves an element of guessing but often settles down to practice obtaining in particular court with inevitable differences arising in the context of the times and events in the light of social imperatives. It is always a matter of judicial discretion subject to any mandatory minimum prescribed by law. In judging the adequacy of a sentence the nature of the offence, the circumstances, of its commission, the age and character of the offender, injury to individuals or to society, effect of the punishment on the offender, eye to correction and reformation of the offender, are some amongst many other factors which would be ordinarily taken into consideration by courts. Trial courts in this country already over-burdened with work have hardly any time to set apart for sentencing reflection. This aspect is missed or deliberately ignored by the accused lest a possible plea for reduction of sentence may be considered as weakening his defence. In a good system of administration of criminal justice pre-sentence investigation may be of great sociological value. Throughout the world humanitarianism is permeating into penology and the courts are expected to discharge their appropriate roles. This aspect is missed or deliberately ignored by the accused lest a possible plea for reduction of sentence may be considered as weakening his defence. In a good system of administration of criminal justice pre-sentence investigation may be of great sociological value. Throughout the world humanitarianism is permeating into penology and the courts are expected to discharge their appropriate roles. " ( 34 ) IN Jagmohan Singh v. State of U. P. , the Apex Court held as hereunder:"in India the difficulty encountered by the Commission had been overcome long ago and it is accepted by the public that only the Judges shall decide the sentence. Where an error is committed in the matter of sentence the same is liable to be corrected by appeals and revisions to higher Courts for which appropriate provision was made in the criminal Procedure Code. The structure of our criminal law which is principally contained in the Indian Penal Code and the Criminal Procedure Code underlines the policy that when the Legislature has defined an offence with sufficient clarity and prescribed the maximum punishment therefor, a wide discretion in the matter of fixing the degree of punishment should be allowed to the judge. As pointed out by Ratanlal in his law of Crimes. Twenty-Second Edition page 98. "the authors of the Code had in many cases not heinous, fixed a minimum as well as a maximum punishment. The committee were of opinion that, considering the general terms in which offences were defined it would be inexpedient, in most cases, to fix a minimum punishment; and they had accordingly so altered the Code as to leave the minimum punishment for all offences, except those of the gravest nature, to the discretion of the Judge who would have the means in each case of forming an opinion as to the character of the offender and the circumstances whether aggravating or mitigating, under which the offence had been committed. But with respect to some heinous offences - such as offences against the State, murder, attempt to commit murder and the like - they had thought it right to fix a minimum punishment. " ( 35 ) IT is no doubt true that awarding sentence should be in consonance and in conformity with the nature of the offences charged. But with respect to some heinous offences - such as offences against the State, murder, attempt to commit murder and the like - they had thought it right to fix a minimum punishment. " ( 35 ) IT is no doubt true that awarding sentence should be in consonance and in conformity with the nature of the offences charged. The gravity of the offence may have to be taken into consideration while imposing the sentence and Courts are expected to exercise judicial discretion. It is no doubt true that several factors may have to be taken into consideration while imposing the sentence. It is pertinent to note that when offence had been recorded as against the accused in relation to grave charge imposing heavy punishment at the same time, observing the sentence to be simple imprisonment may not be proper exercise of judicial discretion. In such a case, if the Court is inclined to exercise the discretion of imposing simple imprisonment only, this Court is of the considered opinion that reasons are to be recorded under what circumstances, though despite the fact that the accused was guilty of the grave charges and serious punishments had been imposed, instead of rigorous imprisonment, simple imprisonment is being imposed. ( 36 ) BE that as it may, here is a case where the appellant/accused had been in jail for more than six years already and at this stage though the discretion exercised by the learned judge may not be in consonance with the settled principles of judicial discretion in relation to awarding of punishment, this Court is not inclined to alterthe simple imprisonment to one of rigorous imprisonment. Apart from this aspect of the matter, taking into consideration the age of the appellant/ accused, this Court is of the opinion that the sentence imposed under Section 376 (1) read with 511 I. P. C. is hereby modified to a period of six years simple imprisonment and the payment of fine of Rs. 1,000/-, failing which, to suffer simple imprisonment for one year is concerned, is hereby confirmed. Likewise, the period of simple imprisonment of five years imposed under Section 306 i. P. C. is hereby reduced to a period of four years simple imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/-, failing which, to suffer simple imprisonment for ten months is hereby confirmed and the modified sentences awarded shall run concurrently. Likewise, the period of simple imprisonment of five years imposed under Section 306 i. P. C. is hereby reduced to a period of four years simple imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/-, failing which, to suffer simple imprisonment for ten months is hereby confirmed and the modified sentences awarded shall run concurrently. Except this modification, in all particulars, the findings recorded by the learned Judge are hereby confirmed. ( 37 ) IT is represented that most part of the sentence already had been completed and the appellant/accused is entitled to set off the period of imprisonment, if any, undergone even before the Court of first instance. It is needless to say that he is entitled to set off of the said period also. ( 38 ) THE Criminal Appeal shall stand dismissed subject to the above modification.