Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 587 (PNJ)

Rinku Alias Lalit Kumar v. State Of Haryana

2005-05-11

VIRENDER SINGH

body2005
Judgment Virender Singh, J. 1. Rinku @ Lalit Kumar was charged under Sections 363/366/376 of the Indian Penal Code for allegedly kidnapping the daughter of Mam Chand and committing rape upon her at various places. (The name of the victim is not being disclosed. She will be referred to as `prosecutrix only). 2. Vide impugned judgment dated February 17/19, 2003, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Narnaul the appellant now stands convicted for the aforesaid charges and has been sentenced to undergo RI for 7 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/-, in default to suffer further RI for one month under Section 376 IPC. Under Section 366 IPC he has been sentenced to undergo RI for five years and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/-, in default of payment of fine to suffer further RI for one month. Both the sentences have been ordered to run concurrently. The appellant is, however, not convicted under Section 363 IPC. 3. It needs to be mentioned here that after the application for suspension of sentence filed on behalf of the appellant was dismissed by this Court on August 27, 2004, he knocked at the door of the Honble Apex Court by filing a Special Leave Petition. While dismissing the said petition on January 28, 2005, the Honble Supreme Court gave liberty to the appellant to renew his application for bail after six months in case his appeal is not disposed of by then. Hence this appeal is before me for final disposal. Adverting to the facts : 4. Sunita (PW-11), mother of the prosecutrix, moved an application (Ex. PH) before the Superintendent of Police, Narnaul on 20.7.2001 alleging therein that on 2.7.2001, the prosecutrix had gone to the temple to offer prayer to the deity. She noticed the appellant standing near the temple. He kidnapped the prosecutrix and took her in a jeep to Rewari and other cities. The prosecutrix remained at Rewari for 6/7 days. The appellant was accompanied by two other boys at Rewari, who had also been committing the bad act (rape) with the prosecutrix and they had been moving her to different places. On 17.7.2001 a person known by the name of Balwant brought the prosecutrix to the village and thereafter she disclosed everything to her (Sunita). 5. The appellant was accompanied by two other boys at Rewari, who had also been committing the bad act (rape) with the prosecutrix and they had been moving her to different places. On 17.7.2001 a person known by the name of Balwant brought the prosecutrix to the village and thereafter she disclosed everything to her (Sunita). 5. On receipt of the aforesaid application, a case under Sections 363/366/376 IPC read with Section 34 IPC was registered. ASI Jaswant Singh (PW-5) took over the investigation. The prosecutrix was taken to CHC Ateli, from where she was referred to General Hospital, Narnaul for medical examination. After her first examination, a board of doctors was constituted to re-examine her. The medical evidence will be discussed at the relevant stage. On 21.7.2001 she was produced before Sh. Ajay Tewatia, Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Narnaul who recorded her statement (Ex. PJ) under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 6. On July 22, 2001, the appellant was arrested. During interrogation he disclosed the places where the prosecutrix was taken by him. On July 23, 2001, he made a disclosure statement (Ex. PM) before SI Ram Dutt to the effect that he had kept concealed his underwear in bath room. In pursuance of the said disclosure statement, he got recovered the underwear (Ex. P2), which was taken into possession vide recovery memo. Ex. PM/1. The appellant was also got medico-legally examined. 7. On submission of challan, the charges were framed against the appellant. 8. The prosecution in all has examined 13 witnesses. The medical evidence is as under :- 9. PW-1 Dr. Seema examined the prosecutrix and observed as under : "Secondary sexual characters : the larche present. Slight auxiliary and pubic hairs were present. Menarche not attained as yet. No external mark of fresh injury was seen anywhere over the body. Nails well cut. LOCAL EXAMINATION : No external mark of fresh injury over abdomen, thighs, perineal region. No discharge, no bleeding, no foreign body. Labia majora was normal looking and covering the libia minora. No injury or edema. Hymen was intact and introitus admits tip of little finger. Swabs taken from introitus. P/S, P/V not possible. OPINION : She was not used to sexual intercourse and there was no sign of sexual intercourse at that time". The report (Ex. Labia majora was normal looking and covering the libia minora. No injury or edema. Hymen was intact and introitus admits tip of little finger. Swabs taken from introitus. P/S, P/V not possible. OPINION : She was not used to sexual intercourse and there was no sign of sexual intercourse at that time". The report (Ex. PE) of the Director, Forensic Science Laboratory was then produced before the board of doctors by the concerned police for getting fresh opinion with regard to sexual intercourse, upon which the board observed that the possibility of rape cannot be ruled out. Dr. Luv Sharma (PW-9) is another witness with regard to re-examination of the prosecutrix. She is the member of another board constituted of three doctors in order to ascertain whether the rape was committed upon the prosecutrix or not. The Board observed as under: "GENERAL PHYSICAL EXAMINATION : The patient was conscious, co-operative, of average built. BP was 110/70 MM of Hg, bilateral pupils were normal, gait was normal, secondary sexual characters : the larche were present, slight axillary hair were present and menarche not attained as yet. No injury could be seen externally over the body. LOCAL EXAMINATION : External genitalia was normal for age. Pubic hair scanty growth. No abnormal discharge. There was no injury present over the external genitalia. Hymen was very patulous, introitus admitted index finger easily. Vagina was patulous. OPINION : After the re-examination of the subject, we arrive at the opinion that there was nothing to suggest that sexual intercourse was not performed on the patient, having, opinion regarding rape and duration of rape could be opined, after the receipt of report of viginal swabs." 10. On October 11, 2001, after perusing the report of the Director, Forensic Science Laboratory, Madhuban, it was opined by the board that the possibility of rape being committed upon the prosecutrix could not be ruled out. 11. PW-10 Dr. Anju Huria is another member of the said board, which examined the prosecutrix on 25.7.2001. She also toes the evidence given by Dr. Sharma. 12. PW-8 Dr. Arun Kalra had examined the appellant on July 21, 2001 and found that he was capable of performing sexual intercourse. 13. 11. PW-10 Dr. Anju Huria is another member of the said board, which examined the prosecutrix on 25.7.2001. She also toes the evidence given by Dr. Sharma. 12. PW-8 Dr. Arun Kalra had examined the appellant on July 21, 2001 and found that he was capable of performing sexual intercourse. 13. With regard to the age of the prosecutrix, Rama Nand, Clerk of the office of Principal, Government Girls Senior Secondary School Ateli appeared as PW-3 and on the basis of the record she disclosed the date of birth of the prosecutrix as 13.11.1987. 14. PW-11 Sunita mother of the prosecutrix proved her application (Ex. PH) and reiterated whatever is stated therein. 15. The prosecutrix has been examined as PW-12. According to her substantive statement, on 2.7.2001 at about 8.00 A.M., she had gone to post office Ateli Mandi to send a telegram to her father when the present appellant had met her. The old relation projected by the prosecutrix is that the appellant had been visiting his maternal uncle in village Uninda. The appellant told her that her father had already arrived and that the latter was a little ahead. The appellant asked her to help her father in transporting his luggage. On this pretext, she accompanied the appellant. She then alleges that the appellant took her to a deserted forest, where he threatened to kill her if she did not sit in the jeep, which was standing nearby. Consequently she entered the jeep. After sometime, she was asked to sniff some intoxicant drug. She became unconscious. She regained her consciousness at Rewari. She then alleged that she was raped during her unconsciousness state. She further states that the appellant and the driver of the jeep committed rape upon her. She was kept at Rewari for 3/4 days and during this period, the appellant and the driver had continued committing sexual intercourse with her. Thereafter she was taken to various places in the jeep. She then states that whenever she cried for help, she was threatened of being killed. She then alleges that she was taken to Jaipur where also the appellant committed rape upon her. From there she was brought to Rewari after 5/6 days. She was left there. She then went to railway station, where an old man was sitting, whom she disclosed her story and he brought her home. She then alleges that she was taken to Jaipur where also the appellant committed rape upon her. From there she was brought to Rewari after 5/6 days. She was left there. She then went to railway station, where an old man was sitting, whom she disclosed her story and he brought her home. She further states that she had also stayed overnight at the house of the said old man. She also proves her statement (Ex. PS) recorded by the learned Magistrate under Section 164 Cr.P.C. 16. The investigation conducted by PW-5 Jaswant Singh has already been alluded to in the preceding paras. 17. The other evidence adduced by the prosecution is of formal nature. I do not feel the necessity of describing the same. 18. Since the statement of the prosecutrix recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. was proved by herself when she was examined on oath, Sh. Ajay Tewatia, Judicial Magistrate Ist Class was given up as unnecessary. Similarly the other doctors, who were also members of the Board were also given up as unnecessary. 19. The defence plea taken up by the appellant is of false implication. In his defence, he produced DW-1 Niranjan Lal, who states that the appellant was at his shop in Kanina from 2.7.2001 to 17.7.2001. Besides this, the appellant has produced certified copy of the statement of Sunita (Ex. DB) in case titled State v. Narender, bearing FIR No. 30, dated 22.3.1984 registered at police station Ateli and the certified copy of judgment (Ex. PC) passed in that case. 20. I have heard Mr. C.B. Kaushik, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. Jitender Dhanda, Advocate, representing the State of Haryana. With their assistance, I have gone through the entire record. 21. Mr. Kaushik contends that the prosecution has not been able to prove the charge against the appellant under Section 376 IPC as the evidence in this regard is lacking. Taking me through the medical evidence on record, he submits that according to Dr. Seema (PW-1), she did not notice any internal or external injury inasmuch as even labia majora was looking normal and was covering the labia minora; that there was no injury over abdomen, thighs and perineal region and the hymen was also intact; that intoitus was also admitting only the tip of the little finger. Seema (PW-1), she did not notice any internal or external injury inasmuch as even labia majora was looking normal and was covering the labia minora; that there was no injury over abdomen, thighs and perineal region and the hymen was also intact; that intoitus was also admitting only the tip of the little finger. According to her opinion, the prosecutrix was not used to sexual intercourse and there was no sign of sexual intercourse at that time. The learned counsel contends that may be on the basis of report of the Director, Forensic Science Laboratory, this witness has subsequently opined that possibility of rape cannot be ruled out, but the medical evidence rules out the commission of sexual intercourse with the prosecutrix at any stage. 22. The learned counsel then contends that since the prosecution was not clear about the commission of sexual intercourse in this case, the board of doctors was constituted for re-examination and according to the opinion of the board, it is not clear as to whether the sexual intercourse is performed or not. According to the learned counsel, there is no categoric medical opinion with regard to the rape whereas the prosecutrix in her substantive statement has stated that she was subjected to sexual intercourse repeatedly by the appellant and his driver at different places. The charge of Section 376 IPC is thus not proved, the learned counsel so contends. 23. Mr. Kaushik then contends that even the charge under Section 366 IPC is not proved to the hilt as the prosecution has not been able to bring concrete evidence with regard to age of the prosecutrix. The charge of Section 376 IPC is thus not proved, the learned counsel so contends. 23. Mr. Kaushik then contends that even the charge under Section 366 IPC is not proved to the hilt as the prosecution has not been able to bring concrete evidence with regard to age of the prosecutrix. He contends that in this case no ossification test has been conducted; that the said test was not even suggested by the doctor at the time of medical examination of the prosecutrix; that no birth entry has been produced to prove her age and the only document produced in this regard is the admission register of the school, where she had studied upto 6th standard; that a careful examination of the said register also indicates that the entry regarding the prosecutrix has been made at the bottom of the page and apart from the said entry, no other entry has been made; that even the date of her admission is not mentioned in the register; that the entry shown is 5681-B whereas all the other entries have been made serial wise and this indicates that some interpolation has been done subsequently in the school register so as to show the prosecution as minor. Drawing my attention to the entry Ex. DA, the learned counsel submits that the prosecutrix was not minor on the date of occurrence and in all probabilities she was of the age of 18 years or above. 24. Pointing out other infirmities in the case of the prosecution, Mr. Kaushik submits that the statement of the prosecutrix in the Court is different from the one made by her under Section 164 Cr.P.C. (Ex. PS) before the Magistrate; that even the initial application (Ex. PH) moved by her mother gives a different version, which shows that a colourful version has been coined up to implicate the appellant and that the prosecutrix has also toed the line of her mother in one way or the other. The learned counsel in the same stress submits that the statement of the prosecutrix shows that she in fact was a consenting party to whole of the affair; that she remained out of her house for long 18 days; that she did not raise hue and cry at any occasion during that period and possibly it cannot be said that she remained under constant threat of the appellant. Pointing out some other discrepancies in the statement of the prosecutrix and her mother, Mr. Kaushik submits that the entire case of the prosecution is engulfed under clouds and that even charge of Section 366 IPC also falls on the ground. 25. Relying very heavily upon the defence evidence, Mr. Kaushik submits that the mother of the prosecutrix had earlier also got a case registered against one Narender of village Uninda, bearing FIR No. 30 dated 22.3.1984, under Sections 363/366/497/498 IPC and during trial, she did not support the prosecution version and ultimately the aforesaid Narender was acquitted. The learned counsel in this regard relies upon the documents Exhibits DB and DC and submits that the appellant has also been falsely implicated at the instance of mother of the prosecutrix. 26. On the basis of the aforesaid submissions, the learned counsel prays for acquittal of the appellant. 27. State has opposed the contentions raised by counsel for the appellant. 28. After giving my thoughtful consideration to the rival submissions made by either side, I am of the view that the prosecution has been able to prove its case beyond any shadow of reasonable doubt against the appellant qua both the charges. My reasoning for arriving at the said conclusion is as under : 29. Let us first examine the case from the point of delay in lodging the report. A perusal of the complaint (Ex. PH) indicates that there is in fact a delay of 3 days in lodging the formal FIR, for which no explanation is forthcoming. As per the prosecution version, the prosecutrix was allegedly kidnapped on 2.7.2001. She was dropped at her residence by an old man namely Balwant on 17.7.2001. After reaching home, she disclosed the whole incident to her mother. After all in this case the rape has been committed with an unmarried girl of tender age. Before lodging the report with the police, her mother must have thought a number of times that the same could damage the marriage prospects of her daughter and that it would bring ignominy for whole of the family. In this eventuality, if some time is consumed by her in lodging the report, in my view the same would not dent the case of the prosecution. Whatever is stated by mother of the prosecutrix, does not appear to have any tinge of adulteration in it. In this eventuality, if some time is consumed by her in lodging the report, in my view the same would not dent the case of the prosecution. Whatever is stated by mother of the prosecutrix, does not appear to have any tinge of adulteration in it. She does not raise a finger of suspicion towards any other boy. A perusal of the report (Exh. PH) indicates that she talks about the present appellant only. Another fact apparent from this report is that she does not allege any enmity with the appellant. Rather she states that he is distantly related to them. The relation is projected from village Uninda. Even the appellant does not allege in his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. that he has been falsely implicated on account of any enmity. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the delay of 3 days in lodging the FIR cannot be said to be a weakness in the case of the prosecution. 30. Adverting to the point of age of the prosecutrix : 31. The learned counsel for the appellant attacks the case of the prosecution submitting that in all probabilities the prosecutrix was major, nearing 18 years at the time of occurrence. I, however, do not agree with this submission at all. No doubt, ossification test was not conducted in this case. The only documentary evidence produced in order to prove her age is the entry of her date of birth in the school record. I have minutely seen the said entry from the point of alleged interpolation. Simply that this entry is made at the bottom, below all the other candidates, this by itself would not be a ground to discard it. For satisfying myself on the aspect of age of the prosectrix, I have appreciated the case of the prosecution from the other evidence produced by it in the shape of statement of her mother, who has deposed on oath that her daughter was 13 years of age when the incident took place. Interestingly, this witness has not been cross-examined by the defence counsel on this particular aspect. Once mother of the prosecutrix has not been cross-examined on this material aspect, it can be safely concluded that the defence side has admitted the age of the prosecutrix as 13 years. 32. The matter does not rest here. Interestingly, this witness has not been cross-examined by the defence counsel on this particular aspect. Once mother of the prosecutrix has not been cross-examined on this material aspect, it can be safely concluded that the defence side has admitted the age of the prosecutrix as 13 years. 32. The matter does not rest here. The age of the prosecutrix can also be ascertained from the medical evidence on record. Dr. Seema (PW-1), who examined her with regard to secondary sexual characters has observed that there was slight axillary and pubic hair and that menarche had not attained at that stage. This situation can only be when the girl is of the age of 13/14 years. Had she been more than 16 years, the pubic or axillary hair must have developed and she in that situation would have attained the stage of menarche (monthly natural bleeding). From this it can comfortably be concluded that the age of the prosecutrix was hardly 13/14 years at the time of occurrence. 33. Let us now re-scan the evidence on record in respect of the charge under Section 376 IPC. The main thrust of the learned counsel for the appellant in this regard is that when the prosecutrix was initially examined on 20.7.2001, her hymen was found intact and introitus was admitting the tip of little finger, as is evident from the statement of Dr. Seema (PW-1). Dr. Seema had initially observed that the prosecutrix was not subjected to sexual intecourse. Subsequently, the prosecutrix was examined by the board of doctors at PGIMS, Rohtak and there is a lot of difference in the report made by the board at PGIMS Rohtak and the report initially prepared at General Hospital, Narnaul. I am not convinced with the arguments. Dr. Luv Sharma (PW-9) who had examined the prosecutrix on 25.7.2001 along with the other doctors and found the hymen to be patulous. The board also observed that the introitus was admitting index finger easily. This difference of two opinions assumes great importance. There is a difference in the girth of little finger and index finger. The hymen is also noticed as very patulous by the board at PGIMS. The literal meaning of the word "patulous" is "spreading slightly", "extended", "opening widely", "with a spreading aperture". This indicates that in fact the hymen was not in its original shape and some penetration was certainly there. The hymen is also noticed as very patulous by the board at PGIMS. The literal meaning of the word "patulous" is "spreading slightly", "extended", "opening widely", "with a spreading aperture". This indicates that in fact the hymen was not in its original shape and some penetration was certainly there. In my view, mere non-rupturing of hymen would not be a ground to infer that the rape was not committed. Mere penetration is sufficient to constitute the offence of committing sexual intercourse for the purpose of bringing it within the explanation enumerated in Section 375 I.P.C. 34. In State of Uttar Pradesh v. Babul Nath, 1995(1) Recent Criminal Reports 101 (SC) it was observed by the Honble Supreme Court as under : "It may here be noticed that Section 375 of the IPC defines rape and the explanation to Section 375 reads as follows : "Explanation : Penetration is sufficient to constitute the sexual intercourse necessary to the offence of rape." From the explanation reproduced above, it distinctly clear that ingredients which are essential for proving a charge of rape are the accomplishment of the act with force and resistance. To constitute the offence of rape neither Section 375 of IPC nor the explanation attached thereto require that there should necessarily be complete penetration of the penis into the private part of the victim/prosecutrix. In other words to constitute the offence of rape it is not at all necessary that there should be complete penetration of the male organ with emission of semen and rupture of hymen. Even partial or slightest penetration of the male organ within the labia majora or the vulva or pudenda with or without any emission of semen or even an attempt at penetration into the private part of the victim would be quite enough for the purpose of Sections 375 and 376 I.P.C. That being so, it is quite possible to commit legally the offence of rape even without causing any injury to the genitals or leaving any seminal stains. xxx xxx xxx" 35. My view is also fortified by another judgment of this Court rendered in Balraj alias Bala v. State of Haryana, Criminal Appeal No. 62-SB of 1989, decided on May 8, 2003. In the said judgment, the aforesaid decision in State of Uttar Pradeshs case has been followed. 36. xxx xxx xxx" 35. My view is also fortified by another judgment of this Court rendered in Balraj alias Bala v. State of Haryana, Criminal Appeal No. 62-SB of 1989, decided on May 8, 2003. In the said judgment, the aforesaid decision in State of Uttar Pradeshs case has been followed. 36. From the aforesaid discussion and following the ratio laid down in State of Uttar Pradesh v. Babul Naths case (supra), it can be safely concluded that the prosecutrix was subjected to sexual intercourse. 37. Let us re-appreciate the case of the prosecution in the light of other evidence on the file. The history appearing in the medico-legal report prepared at PGIMS, Rohtak is that the prosecutrix was going to meet her father on 2.7.2001 at Ateli. The appellant and another boy had told her to accompany them for the purpose of seeing her father. She, however, resisted but was forcibly thrown into the jeep and taken to an unknown place where she was locked in a room where the abductors had repeatedly committed sexual assault with her. It is then mentioned in the said report that she was dropped by those persons on 7.7.2001 near her village. No doubt, whatever is mentioned in this MLR is not in conformity with the report lodged by mother of the prosecutrix and even the statement (Ex. PS) of the prosecutrix recorded by the Magistrate, but in my considered view, the facts mentioned in the medico-legal report (Ex. PR/1) are significant as the police had already come to know of the entire incident on 20.7.2001 through Ex. PH, a written complaint made by mother of the prosecutrix. Even the prosecutrix herself had made all the facts clear in her statement Ex. PS recorded before the Magistrate. Therefore, there was no reason for her to give a different version on 25.7.2001. It appears to the natural prudence that the concerned doctor had not grasped the entire incident in its true sense. There is no reason to reject the statement of the prosecutrix recorded before the Magistrate. No doubt, the purpose for going out on 2.7.2001 from the house is shown different in Ex. PH than what is said before the Magistrate, but in my view, these discrepancies are not going to create any doubt in the case of the prosecution when the basic substratum is not shaky. 38. No doubt, the purpose for going out on 2.7.2001 from the house is shown different in Ex. PH than what is said before the Magistrate, but in my view, these discrepancies are not going to create any doubt in the case of the prosecution when the basic substratum is not shaky. 38. I have also considered the case of the prosecution from the angle of discrepancies pointed out in the statement of the prosecutrix recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. and her substantive evidence recorded during the trial vis-a-vis the deposition of her mother. Certain discrepancies or contradictions are bound to occur and these have to be tested on the facts of each individual case. After minutely re-scanning the entire evidence, I am of the view that the discrepancies, if at all are there, the same do not go to the root of the case. 39. I have appreciated the case with regard to investigation also. No doubt, the driver of the jeep, who also allegedly committed the bad act with the prosecutrix, has not been nabbed, but in my view, this can at the most be termed as a laxity on the part of the investigating agency and is not going to have any adverse effect so far as involvement of the present appellant is concerned. The substantive statement of the prosecutrix is a pointer towards the guilt of the appellant. 40. An attempt has also been made to dent the case of the prosecution from the documents produced by the appellant in his defence in the shape of Exhibits DB and DC. No doubt, a case bearing FIR No. 30 dated 22.3.1994 was registered at police station Ateli under Sections 363/366/497/498 IPC by Harpal, husband of the present complainant (Sunita), but when she did not support the prosecution version, the accused was acquitted. This would not be a ground to conclude that even this case is false. In the aforesaid case the accused might have entered into a compromise with the complainant and for this reason she had given a complete go-bye to her earlier statement. It cannot be said by any stretch of imagination that the mother of the prosecutrix is in the habit of levelling such charges against any one and every one for extraneous reasons. The instant case relates to a young girl of hardly 13/14 years. It cannot be said by any stretch of imagination that the mother of the prosecutrix is in the habit of levelling such charges against any one and every one for extraneous reasons. The instant case relates to a young girl of hardly 13/14 years. No mother can be so cruel as to expose her daughter with the false allegations of rape. Thus, in my view, the documents Exs. DB and DC do not advance the case of the appellant even by an inch. 41. No other point has been urged before me. 42. As a sequel to the aforesaid discussion, the net result that surfaces is that the prosecution succeeds in proving its case against the appellant beyond any shadow of reasonable doubt qua both the charges. The conviction as recorded by the learned trial Court is thus upheld. 43. Mr. Kaushik, in the alternative has also prayed for reduction in the quantum of sentence, submitting that the appellant is in custody since July 2001 any by now has undergone about five years; that at the time of occurrence he was 21 years of age; that he is not a previous convict and as such his case calls for a lenient view on this count. 44. The learned State counsel repudiates the submissions made on this count and states that the appellant does not deserve the least sympathy of this Court. 45. In my view, inadequate sentence would do more harm to the justice system. It is the duty of the Court to award proper sentence having regard to the nature of offence and the manner in which it is executed or committed. In Ravji v. State of Rajasthan, 1996(2) SCC 175, it has been observed by the Honble Supreme Court that it is the nature and gravity of the crime but not the criminal, which are germane for consideration of appropriate punishment in a criminal trial. It is further observed that the Court will be failing in its duty if appropriate punishment is not awarded for a crime which has been committed not only against the individual victim but also against the society to which the criminal and the victim belong. 46. It is further observed that the Court will be failing in its duty if appropriate punishment is not awarded for a crime which has been committed not only against the individual victim but also against the society to which the criminal and the victim belong. 46. In State of Karnataka v. Puttaraja, 2004(1) RCR(Crl.) 113 (SC), it has been observed by their Lordships of the Apex Court that a rapist not only causes physical injuries but also indelibly leaves a scar on the most cherished possession of a woman i.e. her dignity, chastity, honour and reputation. 47. In the peculiar facts of the instant case in which a girl of tender age (13/14 years) has fallen a prey to the sexual lust of the appellant, in my view, he does not deserve the least sympathy of this Court with regard to reduction in the quantum of sentence. The young age of the appellant (21 years) at the time of occurrence cannot be considered as a mitigating circumstance in his favour. Consequently the sentence already awarded to the appellant by the trial Court on both the counts is hereby affirmed. Resultantly, the appeal stands dismissed on all aspects.