( 1 ) DURING the course of hearing of the application of the petitioner for parole, it was urged by learned amicus curiae, Mr. Arpit Kapadia that it was a fit case for taking the matter in suo motu revision in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case. While the applicant-convict was personally present in the Court, it was submitted that he has only his aged parents in the family and due to their old age and poverty, they were unable to maintain themselves. The supposed victim of the offence was since long married and had left the village in the year 2005. He also submitted that he himself was an illiterate person, aged 24, having already undergone imprisonment for about five years. Thereafter, learned counsel, Mr. Kapadia, having been appointed as advocate for the applicant, he has appeared for the original applicant-convict and submitted a brief synopsis to show as to why the punishment and sentence were required to be reduced. ( 2 ) IT was seen from the judgement dated 15. 04. 2005 of learned Joint District Judge, Nadiad in Special Case (SC/st) No. 61 of 2004 and pointed out by learned A. P. P. that the petitioner-convict was convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 363, 366 and 376 of IPC and Section 3 (1) (XI) (XII) read with sub-section 2 (V) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, and sentenced to, in all, eight years of rigorous imprisonment and various amounts of fine. It was also seen and conceded that the victim of the offences appeared to have willingly and voluntarily eloped with the petitioner and the offences were registered and conviction was recorded mainly on account of the tender age of the victim. However, the exact age of the victim could also not be determined, but it was found that she was below the age of sixteen at the time of the offences. In fact, deposition of the father of the victim indirectly indicated that his daughter could have crossed the age of sixteen at the time of the incident. However, rather than challenging the conviction itself, learned counsel Mr. Kapadia emphasized the fact that the petitioner himself was below 19 years of age and did not have any criminal record before or after the alleged offence. Having regard to all the circumstances, it was submitted by Mr. However, rather than challenging the conviction itself, learned counsel Mr. Kapadia emphasized the fact that the petitioner himself was below 19 years of age and did not have any criminal record before or after the alleged offence. Having regard to all the circumstances, it was submitted by Mr. Kapadia that the imprisonment already undergone by the petitioner was more than sufficient and there were adequate and special reasons to justify imposition of punishment lesser than the minimum prescribed by the provisions of Section 376 of IPC. Thus, in short, it was a fit case to impose less than seven years of imprisonment, according to the submission. ( 3 ) IT is true that the offence of rape is a serious and heinous offence and a person convicted of such an offence cannot be treated lightly or with any kind of compassion. It also cannot be gainsaid that supposed consent of a girl, below the age of sixteen, would be immaterial and irrelevant as far as conviction is concerned. It is a different question whether consent of the victim could always be treated as a mitigating circumstance to justify lesser punishment. It was submitted by learned counsel Mr. Kapadia that various circumstances were considered and accepted as special and adequate by the Supreme Court for reducing the sentence. In Ram Kumar Vs. State of Haryana [ (2006) 4 SCC 347 ], the victim having been married and living with her husband was cited as the reason for reducing sentence to imprisonment for three years. In Raj Kumar @ Raju Yadav @ Raj Kumar Yadav Vs. State of Bihar [ (2006) 9 SCC 589 ], the convict had undergone approximately three and half years of incarceration and in view of the doctor's deposition that there was no confirmatory evidence of rape on the victim, the sentence was reduced to the period already undergone. In Sukhwinder Singh Vs. State of Punjab [ (2000) 9 SCC 204 ], the prosecutrix was a consenting party and a compromise petition was duly filed, but the High Court refused to award less than the minimum sentence. The Supreme Court held that the High Court ought to have reduced the sentence to the period already undergone by the appellant. It was, however, fairly conceded that there cannot be a straight jacket formula and the sentence or reduction thereof should depend upon special facts and circumstances of each case. The Supreme Court held that the High Court ought to have reduced the sentence to the period already undergone by the appellant. It was, however, fairly conceded that there cannot be a straight jacket formula and the sentence or reduction thereof should depend upon special facts and circumstances of each case. Therefore, it is not a matter of liberal or strict attitude or a specific and certain sentencing policy but a matter of doing justice by imposing appropriate punishment in a particular case having regard to the special facts and circumstances. In certain set of circumstances, neither the theory of deterrent punishment, nor the system of preventive detention, nor reformatory theories of sentencing come into full play but only a convicted person, on the threshold of his youthful and useful life, may lose crucial years of his working life with a stigma and in company of some hardened criminals. The real and effective punishment, without imprisonment, suffered by old and aged parents of the convict, as it appears to have happened in the facts of the present case, just remain out of consideration of the court. ( 4 ) THEREFORE, having regard to the basis of the conviction, the age and status of the victim and the petitioner, other antecedents and the social strata and educational level of the parties, it appears to be a fit case falling within the parameters of the proviso to Section 376, requiring interference with the sentence imposed upon the convict. Therefore, the present revision application is partly allowed and, maintaining conviction for the aforesaid offences, the sentence of total period of imprisonment is reduced to the period already undergone by the petitioner. The punishment of fine shall also stand modified to total fine of Rs. 2,500/- for all the offences for which the petitioner is convicted and he shall be permitted to pay such fine within a period of one month. In case of default in paying the fine, the convict shall undergo simple imprisonment for three months. The revision application is disposed accordingly. Necessary intimation shall be sent to the jail authority concerned.