Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 311 (PNJ)

Sanjiv Kumar v. State of Punjab

2005-02-25

NIRMAL YADAV

body2005
JUDGMENT Nirmal Yadav, J. - Both the abovementioned appeals are directed against the judgment of conviction dated 15.11.1988 and order of sentence of even date passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Patiala whereby four accused namely, Sanjiv Kumar, Bharat Bhushan, Shashi Khanna and Sharda were sent up for trial for the commission of offence under Section 366 read with Section 34 Indian Penal Code and Sanjiv, accused also for the offence under Section 376 Indian Penal Code. The trial Court after taking into consideration the evidence and facts on record acquitted all the accused of the charge under Section 366 read with Section 34 Indian Penal Code and convicted accused-Sanjiv Kumar under Section 376 Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to rigorous imprisonment for 3-1/2 years and a fine of Rs. 3000/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for 1-1/2 years. The State has filed the appeal against the acquittal of all the accused while Sanjiv Kumar, appellant has challenged his conviction and sentence, as mentioned above. 2. The names of the prosecutrix and her family members are not being mentioned herein in order to protect the reputation of the victim and her family. 3. The brief facts as unveiled from the record are that father of the prosecutrix was working as a Manager in the State Bank of Patiala, Khanna Branch. His family was residing at Patiala. He was commuting daily between his house and place of work. His wife was also working as Assistant in the office of District Education Officer at Patiala. The couple had three children, eldest of them was the prosecutrix, aged about 14/15 years and studying in 11th class at the relevant time; younger to her was a son aged about 11 years and youngest child was again a daughter about 7 years old. About two months prior to 14.8.1987 father of the prosecutrix had observed the accused Sanjiv roaming around the street in which house of the complainant was situated. He found him to be a vagabond type of person and checked him from roaming around his house, but he did not desist. On 14.8.1987 when the father and mother of the prosecutrix came back from the irrespective duties, it came to their notice that their eldest daughter had been enticed away by Sanjiv Kumar @ Babbu. He found him to be a vagabond type of person and checked him from roaming around his house, but he did not desist. On 14.8.1987 when the father and mother of the prosecutrix came back from the irrespective duties, it came to their notice that their eldest daughter had been enticed away by Sanjiv Kumar @ Babbu. Both of them went to the house of the accused to make an enquiry where brother of Sanjiv Kumar, his sister and her husband put them off. However, on enquiry it was found that Sanjiv Kumar was not available at his house. The complainant searched for his daughter and also to trace out any clue upto 21.8.1997 and thereafter, he lodged a report with the police. Accordingly, a case under Section 363 Indian Penal Code was registered on 25.8.1987. On 28.8.1997, the police of Patiala learnt from the police at Jalandhar that daughter of the complainant was in their custody along with Sanjiv Kumar alias Babbu, his brother Bharat Bhushan and his sisters husband Shashi Khanna. The local Police went to Jalandhar and recovered the daughter of the complainant and arrested the accused Sanjiv Kumar along with Bharat Bhushan and Shashi Khanna. After recording the statement of the victim, the police arrested Sharda accused also and after due investigation challan under Sections 367, 366, 376 and 109 Indian Penal Code was filed. The trial Court after taking into consideration the facts and evidence on record, charged all the accused under Section 366 read with Section 34 Indian Penal Code. Besides, accused Sanjiv Kumar was also charged under Section 376 Indian Penal Code. The prosecution in order to prove its case produced Dr. Renu Aggarwal as PW-1, who examined the prosecutrix on 26.8.1987 at 2.30 P.M. She took vaginal discharge from the person of the prosecutrix in two tests tubes and one swab stick at the time of examination of the prosecutrix and made these into sealed packet No. 1. She had also prepared two slides, each having vaginal smear and made then into sealed packet No. 2. She handed over these sealed packets with one copy of the M.L.R. to S.I. Lal Chand who deposited the packets with Virsa Singh, PW-6 who was then posted as M.H.C. at Police Station Kotwali, Patiala. PW-6 Virsa Singh sent these parcels through Constable Jagmohan Singh, PW-7 to the office of the Chemical Examiner. She handed over these sealed packets with one copy of the M.L.R. to S.I. Lal Chand who deposited the packets with Virsa Singh, PW-6 who was then posted as M.H.C. at Police Station Kotwali, Patiala. PW-6 Virsa Singh sent these parcels through Constable Jagmohan Singh, PW-7 to the office of the Chemical Examiner. The affidavits of these witnesses are Exs. PG and PH, respectively. Report of the Chemical Examiner is Ex. P-8 which is to the effect that though no spermatozoa were found in one of the swab of the vaginal discharge but the other swab and the slides showed presence of semen. PW-1 Dr. Renu Aggarwal gave her opinion vide report Ex. PA that prosecutrix had been subjected to rape. The prosecutrix appeared as PW-2 and her father as PW-5. Dr. O.P. Aggarwal appeared as PW-3, who examined the accused Sanjiv Kumar and vide his report Ex. PD opined that there was no abnormality which could debar the accused from performing sexual intercourse. Kamaljit Kaur, Clerk from the office of Local Registrar Deaths and Births appeared as PW-4 and produced birth certificate Ex. PE of the prosecutirx, according to which a girl was born to Uttam Singh son of Gian Singh, resident of Purana Barood Khana, Patiala on 13.8.1972. Though name of child does not find mention, but her fathers name and address are mentioned. SI-Lal Chand, Investigating Officer (PW-8) had met PW-5 father of the prosecutrix on 21.8.1987 near the bus stand, Patiala and recorded his statement, Exhibit PF on the basis of which FIR, Ex. PF/2 was registered. 4. Initially, the prosecution story was that Sanjiv Kumar, accused alone had enticed away the prosecutrix and his brother, sister and her husband were not helpful in locating the prosecutrix. However, after the statement of PW-2- prosecutrix was recorded, she disclosed a different story that she used to visit the house of her class-fellow Seema, daughter of Sanjiv Kumars uncle, which was situated 4-5 houses away from the house of Sanjiv Kumar. During her visits to the house of Seema, the prosecutrix became acquinted with Sanjiv Kumar and his sister Sharda. Sharda was also residing along with her husband at a short distance from the house of Seema. As per prosecurtrix, she became very friendly with Sharda, who used to take prosecurtrix to her house. During her visits to the house of Seema, the prosecutrix became acquinted with Sanjiv Kumar and his sister Sharda. Sharda was also residing along with her husband at a short distance from the house of Seema. As per prosecurtrix, she became very friendly with Sharda, who used to take prosecurtrix to her house. It was during those visits, Sharda started suggesting the prosecutrix that she should get married to accused-Sanjiv Kumar. She also used to arrange meetings between the prosecutrix and Sanjiv Kumar. Sanjiv Kumar was a photographer by profession. Prosecutrix had got herself photographed from accused-Sanjiv Kumar. 6. Story further goes that some time prior to the occurrence, the parents of the prosecutrix came to know about her relationship with the accused, which they did not like. Prosecutrix was given beatings by them and, therefore, she stopped meeting Sanjiv Kumar. On 11.8.1987 while the prosecutrix was going to her school, Sanjiv Kumar met her on the way in Kitabanwala Bazar near the school and took her to Baradari Garden and threatened her with a knife that in case she stopped seeing him he would not only kill her but would kill her parents also. Out of fear, she promised that she would continue seeing the accused. She further alleged that on 14.8.1987 when her parents were not present at the house, Sharda, accused came there at about 9-10 A.M. and represented that Sanjiv Kumar, accused was lying seriously ill and was asking for her. Sharda took the prosecutrix away from her house in a rickshaw to a place known as City Garden where a Fiat car was parked and accused Shashi, Bharat Bhushan and Sanjiv Kumar were already present there. Accused-Sanjiv Kumar and Shashi threatened the prosecutrix that she should get married to Sanjiv Kumar else she and her family would be finished. She further alleged that on the point of knife, Shashi, accused made her sit on the back seat of the car with accused-Sanjiv Kumar sitting on one side and Sharda, accused on the other. Accused Bharat Bhushan and Shashi Khanna sat with the driver and the car was taken towards Rajpura Octroi Post and it was stopped at a distance of 200/300 yards from that octroi post. Accused Bharat Bhushan and Shashi Khanna sat with the driver and the car was taken towards Rajpura Octroi Post and it was stopped at a distance of 200/300 yards from that octroi post. Sharda, accused is stated to have told Sanjiv Kumar, accused to take the prosecutrix to the house of her sister Bholi, while, she along with other accused i.e. her husband and Bharat Bhushan left in the car for Jalandhar to make arrangements for their stay in the factory of Shashi Khannas father. 7. It is further disclosed by the prosecutrix, that Sanjiv Kumar took her across the Nallah near the octroi post to the house of his sister Bholi, but the house was found locked. Thereafter, accused-Sanjiv Kumar opened the lock of that house and took the prosecutrix inside and locked the door. She was kept in house for that night. The accused committed sexual intercourse with her three times during the night. On the next day, he again committed rape upon her. In the evening i.e. 15.8.1987, the same car driven by the same driver, who had earlier brought the prosecutrix, arrived at the house of Bholi and accused-Sanjiv Kumar under threat, made the prosecutrix sit in the car and she was taken to Jalandhar at the factory of accused Shashis father where three accused, namely, Shashi, Sharda and Bharat Bhushan were present. All of them remained with the prosecutrix for 3 days. Thereafter, Sharda, accused returned to Patiala, but she directed the other accused to take the prosecutrix to Nalagarh and accordingly, the prosecutrix was taken by the other three accused to Nalagarh where they remained for 2/3 days. The accused tried to perform marriage of prosecutrix with Sanjiv Kumar, accused but were not successful. Thereafter they went to the house of Sanjiv Kumars maternal uncles wife and stayed their for two days and finally, they came back to Jalandhar on 22.8.1987. The police alleged to have apprehended the prosecutrix and accused Sanjiv Kumar, Bharat Bhushan, and Shashi from a Mohalla at Jalandhar where the residents of Mohalla had raised alarm. From Police Station Jalandhar, the prosecutrix was taken back to Patiala by the police and her parents. 8. The accused when examined under Section 313 Criminal Procedure Code denied the prosecution story. From Police Station Jalandhar, the prosecutrix was taken back to Patiala by the police and her parents. 8. The accused when examined under Section 313 Criminal Procedure Code denied the prosecution story. Accused Sanjiv Kumar stated that prosecutrix had run away from the house of her parents on several occasions and had been enjoying sexual acts with others as she was a girl of loose morals. She had been visiting Jalandhar to see Smt. Renu, daughter of uncle of the accused. She was brought by the police while she was staying with the cousin of the accused and he has been falsely implicated in the case. The other accused have also been falsely involved because of their relationship with him. 9. The accused examined Smt. Kamlesh Bali, Lecturer, Government Senior Secondary Victoria School, as DW-1, who deposed that prosecutrix was a student of XIth class. She remained absent from the class and, therefore, her name was struck off on 28.8.1987. She, however, stated that on 10th, 11th, 12th and 13th August 1987, the prosecutrix was marked present and the attendance was taken at 7.15 A.M. and 11.10. A.M. DW-2-Gobind Ram stated that Shashi Khanna, accused was his employee, who was taken away by the police from his shop about 1/2 days prior to 15.8.1987. Rustam Ahmad, DW-3 stated that Bholi, sister of accused was married to his brother Nawab. According to him, none of the accused had come and resided at the house of accused Bholi. Constable-Vijay Kumar, DW-4 from Police Station Division No. 1. Jalandhar, stated on the basis of Daily diary that neither any of the accused or prosecutrix had been brought to the police station in any case or even as suspect nor were they detained or kept at Police Station Division No. 1, Jalandhar. Ashok Kumar, husband of Renu, elder sister of Seema Puri, appeared as DW-5 and stated that he was running a tea stall near Gulab Devi Hospital at Jalandhar. He denied that his father had any factory at Jalandhar or he was employed at any such factory, rather he stated that he became acquainted with the prosecutrix at the time of his marriage at Patiala. The prosecutrix wanted to have intimacy with him and had been writing letters. He denied that his father had any factory at Jalandhar or he was employed at any such factory, rather he stated that he became acquainted with the prosecutrix at the time of his marriage at Patiala. The prosecutrix wanted to have intimacy with him and had been writing letters. In August 1987, his wife Renu was away to Patiala when prosecutrix came to his tea stall in the company of a Sikh gentleman, but he did not permit her to stay at this house in the absence of his wife. Two/three days thereafter, Sanjiv Kumar, accused came to Jalandhar to enquire about the prosecutrix because Polcie was after him, however, prosecutrix was not found there and, therefore, he went back. The prosecutrix again came to this witness who was appraised of the fact that Sanjiv Kumar had come looking for her as the police was after him. Thereafter, the prosecutrix took this witness to the Court and got an affidavit (Ex. DB) typed and signed. She was identified by Vijay Kumar, DW-6. 10. The trial Court after taking into consideration the birth certificate, Exhibit PE and accepting the statement of the complainant, came to the conclusion that prosecutrix was born on 13.6.1972 and, therefore, she was a minor at the time of the alleged occurrence. 11. Learned counsel for the appellant-accused has challenged the above finding of the trial Court. According to him, certificate, Ex. PE cannot be relied upon as the name of the prosecutrix does not find mention therein and it may relate to any other siblings of the prosecutrix. Rather it was suggested that this certificate belonged to the younger sister of the prosecutrix who had died. He further argued that the date of birth in the matriculation certificate did not tally with the date of birth mentioned in the birth certificate, Exhibit PE. There was a difference of one year in the matriculation certificate and the certificate-Ex. PE. These arguments of the learned counsel do not have any force in view of the statement of the complainant where he categorically stated that his marriage was performed on 10.5.1971 and prosecutrix is her first child who was born on 12/13 August, 1975; the second child who is a son was born on 18.9.1974 and the third child, a child, a daughter was born on 28.10.1977. He stated that except the three children, as stated, who were alive, no other child was born to his wife. The matriculation certificate is not a correct proof of the date of birth. It is a normal practice with parents that date of birth in the school, is recorded less that the actual date of birth. According to Dr. Renu Aggarwal, at the time of her examination, the prosecutrix mentioned her age as 13 years, but on her physical examination, she could be said to be more than 16 years of age or could be 18 years of age. According to the doctor, she had referred the prosecutrix for radiological examination for confirmation of date but she was not radiologically examined. Even if the ossification test was performed, this could also not be a surer test for determining the age as margin of error of age as determined by the radiologist, could be two years on either side. The opinion of Dr. Renu Aggarwal is only a guess work and not a sure proof of age. 12. There is no cogent or convincing evidence contradictory to certificate, Ex. PE and to the statement of the complainant to show that prosecutrix was more than 15 years at the time of alleged occurrence. In these circumstances, I agree with the finding of the trial Court that the prosecutrix was below 16 years of age at the time of the alleged occurrence. 13. The learned State counsel argued that it is well proved from the statement of the prosecutrix that she was enticed away by Sanjiv Kumar. Further, she was taken in the car by his co-accused Shashi Khanna, Sharda and Bharat Bhushan. They took her to the house of Bholi and thereafter they again sent the same car on the next day for taking the accused-Sanjiv Kumar and prosecutrix to Jalandhar. Even at Jalandhar these accused had made arrangements for stay of accused-Sanjiv Kumar and prosecutrix in the factory of father of Shashi Khanna. 14. On the other hand, learned defence counsel argued that the complainant, in the FIR clearly stated that he went to enquire about Sanjiv Kumar, accused, but he was put off by his brother Bharat Bhushan, sister Sharda and her husband. He further argued that there is no evidence that Bharat Bhushan, Sharda and her husband had accompanied the accused-Sanjiv Kumar at any point of time. He further argued that there is no evidence that Bharat Bhushan, Sharda and her husband had accompanied the accused-Sanjiv Kumar at any point of time. Therefore, it is argued that the story that other three accused were found along with the prosecutrix and accused-Sanjiv Kumar at Jalandhar is totally concocted. Learned counsel referred to the statement of Constable- Vijay Kumar, DW-4 who deposed on the basis of the daily diary of the Police Station Division No. 1, Jalandhar, that there was no entry from 21.8.1987 to 26.8.1987 showing that any of the accused or prosecutrix had been brought to the police station in any case or even as suspects. There is no mention even in the daily diary that any of the accused or prosecutrix had been detained or kept at the Police Station Division No. 1, Jalandhar. Sub Inspector Lal Chand though, stated that he had received a telephonic message from the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Jalandhar that prosecutrix along with the accused Sanjiv Kumar, Bharat Bhushan and Shashi Khanna were present at Police Station Jalandhar, however, the said Deputy Superintendent of Police has not been examined. As such, there is no evidence or proof that SI-Lal Chand had received any such message. According to SI-Lal Chand during the night intervening 23/24th August 1987, he reached Police Station Division No. 1, Jalandhar and found three accused Sanjiv Kumar, Bharat Bhushan and Shashi along with prosecutrix. However, he did not show their arrest. The Investigating Officer admitted that he did not make any entry in the daily diary register of the police Station, Division No. 1, Jalandhar about his departure or arrival at that Police station from 2.00 A.M. to 10.00 A.M. during the night intervening 24/25. 8.1987. There is no daily diary entry in the Police Station Division No. 1, Jalandhar with regard to arrival or departure of Investigating Officer or any of the accused in connection with any matter as stated by Constable-Vijay Kumar, DW-4. There is also no entry in the daily diary on 25.8.1987 at Police Station Kotwali, Patiala as stated by ASI-Virsa Singh, who was posted as MHC in the said police station, that SI-Lal Chand alone or in the company of the accused or the prosecutrix had returned to the police station. There is also no entry in the daily diary on 25.8.1987 at Police Station Kotwali, Patiala as stated by ASI-Virsa Singh, who was posted as MHC in the said police station, that SI-Lal Chand alone or in the company of the accused or the prosecutrix had returned to the police station. According to him, the accused were not put in the lock up of Police Station Kotwali, Patiala on 25.8.1987 during the day nor the prosecutrix was brought there. There is no report upto 6.00 P.M. on 25.8.1987 with regard to arrival of SI-Lal Chand or the prosecutrix or the accused in Police Station Kotwali, Patiala. There is only an entry at 8.50 A.M. on 27.8.1987 that SI-Lal Chand had taken three accused with him for their medico-legal examination and brought them back at 11.15 A.M. on the same day. SI-Lal Chand, the Investigating Officer, however, admitted in his cross- examination that there was no mention in the daily diary that he had received any telephonic message from Deputy Superintendent of Police, Patiala that the accused and the prosecutrix had been rounded up at Jalandhar at Division No. 1, Jalandhar. There is, of course, a TPM, Ex. CI, which was received at Patiala on 25.8.1987 stating that Sanjiv Kumar and the prosecutrix were moving in suspicious condition in Jalandhar; they were rounded up and on interrogation they disclosed that they had slipped awary from their houses from Patiala on 14.8.1987. 15. Learned counsel, thus, contends that except the above discussed evidence, there is no mention to prove that any of the accused had enticed away the prosecutrix from the lawful guardianship of their parents and that the accused Bharat Bhushan, Sharda or Shashi Khanna had, in any manner, helped the accused-Sanjiv Kumar in enticing away the prosecutrix from the lawful guardianship of her parents. Even with regard to accused Sanjiv Kumar, the evidence is that prosecutrix had been seeing him much prior to this occurrence. PW-5 complainant himself stated that about two months prior to the alleged occurrence he had observed that accused-Sanjay Kumar was roaming around their street and he had asked him not to make such visits. He had also made oral complaints to the parents of accused-Sanjay Kumar who had assured him that accused-Sanjay Kumar would not come to their street and thereafter, the accused-Sanjiv Kumar had actually stopped doing so. He had also made oral complaints to the parents of accused-Sanjay Kumar who had assured him that accused-Sanjay Kumar would not come to their street and thereafter, the accused-Sanjiv Kumar had actually stopped doing so. Prosecutrix herself stated that she knew Sanjiv Kumar for about one year prior to 14.8.1987. She also stated that during her visits to the house of her friend, she became acquainted with Sanjiv Kumar, accused. She further stated that acquaintance continued and turned into intimacy with Sharda, sister of the accused. She further admitted that she got herself photographed from Sanjiv Kumar, accused. She also admitted in her cross-examination that she had met and talked to accused-Sanjiv Kumar around 15/20 times during one year of their meeting. The witness remained silent about the circumstances under which she had written love letters to accused-Sanjiv Kumar. From the statement of the prosecutrix it is more than evident that her parents knew about her relationship with the accused. She was also restrained from meeting him and rather, she was given beatings by them. She also stated that people living in her Mohalla (streat) had come to know about their relationship with the accused and also of the beatings given to her by her parents. 16. According to prosecutrix, while she was going to school she was taken by the accused-Sanjiv Kumar in Kitabanwala Bazar near the school from where the accused took her to Baradari Garden and threatened her that in case she stopped seeing him, he would not only kill her but would kill her parents also. The story appears to be quiet1 unnatural as in her cross-examination she admitted that she had gone to school on her bicycle while the accused had taken his own cycle. Moreover, as per statement of DW-1 Kamlesh Bali, the prosecutrix was marked present in the attendance register on 11.8.1987. This witness stated that first attendance was marked at 7.50 A.M. and second attendance at 11.10 A.M. If on that day the prosecutrix was marked present in the school, how could she be present with accused in Baradari Garden. 17. From the above facts it is clear that prosecution story with regard to enticing away the prosecutrix is quite doubtful. Therefore, I do not find any infirmity in the finding of the trial Court with regard to acquittal of the accused under Section 366 Indian Penal Code. 17. From the above facts it is clear that prosecution story with regard to enticing away the prosecutrix is quite doubtful. Therefore, I do not find any infirmity in the finding of the trial Court with regard to acquittal of the accused under Section 366 Indian Penal Code. Consequently, I am of the view that there is no merit in appeal preferred by the State and the same deserves to be dismissed. 18. As regards appeal filed by Sanjiv Kumar, appellant against his conviction and sentence under Section 376 Indian Penal Code, according to the prosecutrix she was subjected to forcible sexual intercourse during the night intervening 14/15th August 1987 and during day on 15.8.1987. In the cross-examination, the prosecutrix further stated that except on 14th & 15th August 1987 she never committed any sexual intercourse with any person before that day or thereafter. However, as per report of the Chemical Examiner Ex. PB, semen was found on two swabs and the slides. The doctor when examined, stated that prosecutrix having sexual intercourse for 10/20 times could not be ruled out. It is pointed out by the learned defence counsel that it is apparent from the statement of the prosecustrix that she had taken bath after the sexual intercourse at the house of Bholi and thereafter also had been taking bath. Therefore, it was not possible that semen could have been found on the vaginal seabs on 26.8.1987 when the swabs were taken. It is argued that the alleged sexual intercourse as stated by the prosecutrix, had taken place on 14/15th August 1987 and therefore, it was not possible human semen having been found after such a long delay. However, the doctor was of the opinion that existence of semen, after seminal discharge in coitus, could be detected unless interfered with high temeratrue, rainy season and such other conditions. Learned counsel then argued that evidence of the prosecutrix cannot be relied as she had made several contradictory statements and there is no independent corroboration to her statement. He referred to the statement of DW-3-Rustam Ahmed, who is brother of Nawab, husband of Bholi at whose house the prosecutrix was allegedly, taken by the accused. According to him, he was living with Nawab and his wife Bholi and the prosecutrix was never brought to their house by the accused-Sanjiv Kumar. 19. He referred to the statement of DW-3-Rustam Ahmed, who is brother of Nawab, husband of Bholi at whose house the prosecutrix was allegedly, taken by the accused. According to him, he was living with Nawab and his wife Bholi and the prosecutrix was never brought to their house by the accused-Sanjiv Kumar. 19. I do not agree with the arguments of the learned counsel for the appellant as no corroboration to the statement of the prosecutrix by any independent witness is required. There cannot be any corroboration to the statement of the prosecutrix in such a case and the prosecutrix herself would be the best person to state the facts, though there may be contradictions in her statement owing to tutoring by her parents or may be because of some fabrication by the over-jealous Investigating Officer, but her statement cannot be belied or thrown away in entirety. She has categorically stated that the accused-Sanjiv Kumar had committed rape upon her against her wishes during the night intervening 14-15.8.1987 and on 15.8.1987, which has to be believed. From the circumstances of the case and medical evidence on record, it may be inferred that prosecutrix had not protested and she may be a consenting party to the intercourse. Even if it is so, since the prosecutrix was below 16 years of age, accused-Sanjiv Kumar would be guilty of offence under Section 376 Indian Penal Code. The trial Court has also held that Sanjiv Kumar, accused is technically, guilty of rape. Therefore, keeping in view the fact that prosecutrix was a consenting party to the rape, the trial Court has rightly taken a lenient view and awarded only 3-1/2 years rigorous imprisonment to the accused. Learned Counsel for the appellant argued that appellant was 19 years old at the time of the occurrence and it is his first offence. Therefore, sentence may be reduced to the period already undergone by the appellant. 20. Considering the factum of appellant being a first offender, a young man of 19 years at the time of committing offence and his having faced agony of protracted trial, I am of the view that ends of justice would be amply met by maintaining the conviction, however, sentence awarded to the appellant is reduced to the period already undergone and amount of fine is enhanced from Rs. 3000/- to Rs. 3000/- to Rs. 10,000/-; in defalut of payment of which, the accused would further undergo R.I. for 1-1/2 years. The amount of fine so deposited shall be disbursed to the complainant. 21. The net result of the above discussion is that appeal or the appellant- accused is allowed partly in the terms referred as above, and appeal filed by the State is dismissed. Appeal partly allowed.