Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 155 (GAU)

Lalhuapzauva v. State of Mizoram

2013-03-06

P.K.SAIKIA

body2013
JUDGMENT P.K. Saikia, J. 1. The Judgment and Order 17.7.12 passed by Addl. Session Judge, Aizawl is in Criminal Trial No. 240/2008 convicting the accused/appellant namely; Lalhuapzuava u/s. 376/ 511 IPC and sentencing him to R.I. for 2 (two) years and to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000 in default R.I. for 1 (one) month for the offences aforesaid, has been questioned by the, state of Mizoram as well as the accused appellant having preferred Criminal Appeal No. 35 of 2012 and Criminal Appeal No. 39 of 2012 respectively. Since both the appeals have arisen from common Judgment dated 17.7.12, passed in Criminal Trial No. 240/2008, I propose to dispose of both these appeals by this common Judgment and Order. 2. The brier facts necessary for disposal of the present appeals are that on 22.2.2008 at about 1.45 p.m., one H. Lalparrnawii lodged an FIR with the O.C. Saron Veng Police Station alleging that on the same day at around 8.20 a.m. one Lalhuapzauva took her minor daughter aged 9 years to his house on the pretext of giving her a letter to carry to the mother of the accused who was at a place, situated in between the residence of the prosecutrix and her school. 3. Her sister suspecting some foul play on the part of the accused/appellant, persuaded herself to the house of the accused person and started calling the accused person by being in front of his house. Soon thereafter, the accused came out of his house and told her that her sister had already left his house. Not believing such claim, made by the accused, the sister of the prosecutrix entered the house of accused person only to find her sister stuffed under the bed of the accused person. 4. Thereafter she came to know that the accused had raped her younger sister in his house. An FIR to that effect on being lodged on the same day with the O.C. Saron Veng Police Station, O.C. concerned registered a case vide Saron Veng PS Case No. 63/8 under Section 376/ 511 IPC and one Christie Funai, SI of Police was entrusted with the investigation of the case aforementioned. 5. The IO who was so entrusted with the investigation, visited the place of occurrence, examined the witness including the victim girl and got her examined by the doctor. 5. The IO who was so entrusted with the investigation, visited the place of occurrence, examined the witness including the victim girl and got her examined by the doctor. On conclusion of the investigation, she submitted charge sheet under Section 376(2)(f) IPC and forwarded the accused person to the court to stand his trial. 6. The Magistrate before whom the charge-sheet was so laid, committed the case to the Court of Session since the offence under Section 376(2)(f) IPC is exclusively triable by Court of Session. The learned Sessions Judge, Aizawl on receiving the case on commitment transferred the case to the file of Addl. Session Judge, Aizawl for disposal of the same in accordance with provision of law. 7. The learned Addl. Session Judge, Aizawl, on receiving the case on transfer, heard the parties and thereafter framed charge under Section 376(2)(f) IPC against the accused person. The charge so framed on being read over and explained to the accused person, he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. During trial, the prosecution side has examined as many as 5 witnesses including the victim girl. 8. In due course the statement of the accused person was recorded under Section 313 CrPC. However, the accused person totally denied the allegations brought against him but he declined to adduce any evidence on his own. On conclusion of the trial and on hearing the learned counsel for the parties, the Trial Court convicted the accused of offence 376/511 IPC and sentenced him to punishment as aforesaid. 9. This is the judgment which has been assailed in Criminal Appeal No. 35 of 2012 by the accused-appellant whereas state appellant has assailed the same preferring Criminal Appeal No. 39 of 2012 on the grounds stated in the Memo of Appeals. The learned Counsel for the accused-appellant has assailed the judgment impugned mainly on two grounds. 10. At the very beginning, he has contended that the learned counsel who defended the accused before the Trial Court did not do justice with the role, assigned to him as a defence advocate since he did not defend the accused, in the way required under the law. Secondly, he has submitted this Court that despite there being no legal evidence, the Trial Court convicted the accused under challenge unsustainable in law. 11. Secondly, he has submitted this Court that despite there being no legal evidence, the Trial Court convicted the accused under challenge unsustainable in law. 11. In that connection he has pointed out that the Learned Trial Court totally ignore the evidence that the prosecutrix herself which she rendered in her cross-examination since in her cross-examination, she very candidly admitted that the accused person never and ever thrashed his private organ into her genital. Being so, it cannot be said that prosecution has successfully proved the charge under Section 376/ 511 IPC. 12. More importantly, her behavior during time relevant was equally baffling and mysterious. In that connection it has been pointed out that the moment her sister went to the house of the accused person where the prosecutrix was allegedly raped by the accused person, the prosecutrix instead of running in her sister tried to hide herself beneath the bed of the accused person. This only shows that everything was not honky dory on the part of the prosecutrix. 13. It has also been pointed out that during her cross-examination she has admitted that on earlier occasion too, she was raped by the accused person. But she never divulged such episode to anyone, even to her family members. Despite such previous known bad conduct on the part of the accused person, the prosecutrix volunteered to go the house of the accused person on the morning eventful merely on his asking to do so. 14. These peculiar behavior only show that the statement made by the prosecutrix that she was raped by the accused person on the morning in question cannot be accepted without a large grain of salt. He, therefore, urges this Court to set aside the judgment rendered by the Trial Court acquitting the accused person of the offence for which he was so convicted and punished by Trial Court as aforesaid. 15. On the other hand the learned PP appearing on behalf of the State/appellant in Criminal Appeal No. 39 of 2012 contended that the accused ought to have been convicted under Section 376/ 2(i) IPC and not under Section 376/ 511 IPC. According to him, there are sufficient evidence on records to show that the accused person inserted his penis into genital of prosecutrix who was a girl of 9 years of age only when alleged incident struck her. 16. According to him, there are sufficient evidence on records to show that the accused person inserted his penis into genital of prosecutrix who was a girl of 9 years of age only when alleged incident struck her. 16. In that connection my attention has been drawn to the evidence of PWs, more particularly in the evidence of the prosecutrix, her mother and her sister as well who were examined as PW 2, PW 1 and PW 3 respectively. According to learned PP. the evidence of the mother of the prosecutrix clearly shows that the prosecutrix told her and other persons again and again, and that too, just after the alleged incident that the accused had inserted his private organ into the genital of the victim. 17. Such evidence find corroboration from the evidence of the doctor as well. Therefore, the learned Trial Court ought to have convicted the accused person under Section 376/ 2(f) IPC. Since the learned Trial Court did not convict the accused person under Section 376/ 2(f) IPC despite there being enormous evidence warranting conviction of the accused person under Section 376/ (2)(i) IPC, the judgment of the Trial Court is liable to be modified and on such modification, the accused needs to be handed down the minimum punishment prescribed under the law which is 10 years of imprisonment and fine. 18. Even if one assumes for the sake of argument that on the evidence on records the accused person cannot be convicted of offence under Section 376/ 2(f) IPC, yet, in view of materials on record, he cannot escape being found guilty of offence under Section 376/ 2(f)/ 511 IPC since there is copious convincing and solid evidence on record to show that the accused attempted to commit rape on a girl of hardly 9 years of age. On that eventuality as well, the judgment of the Trial Court needs modification and on such modifications, the minimum sentence in respect of offence under section 376/ 2(f) read with 511 IPC is required to be imposed upon the accused appellant. 19. In that connection, he has pointed out that the learned Trial Court had convicted the accused of offence under section 376/ 511 IPC instead of 376(2)(i) IPC and awarded him imprisonment for 2 years and a fine of Rs. 2,000 in default, of R.I. for 1 month for offence under Section 376/ 511 IPC. 20. 19. In that connection, he has pointed out that the learned Trial Court had convicted the accused of offence under section 376/ 511 IPC instead of 376(2)(i) IPC and awarded him imprisonment for 2 years and a fine of Rs. 2,000 in default, of R.I. for 1 month for offence under Section 376/ 511 IPC. 20. He, therefore, urges this Court to modify the conviction of the accused under Section 376/ 511 IPC to appropriate provision of law and on such modification of conviction, he urges this Court to impose suitable punishment on him enhancing the sentence, imposed upon the accused appellant by Trial Court. 21. I have very carefully considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties having regard to the material on records. Before we proceed further, I find it necessary to know how far the allegations made against the accused person stand established in view of materials on record. A bare perusal of the records reveals that the learned-defence counsel did everything possible on his part, of course within the bounds of law, to defend the accused person against the allegations brought against him in the proceeding under consideration. 22. Therefore, the allegations that the learned defense counsel who defended the accused in the Trial Court did not do his duty properly and sincerely as required under the law as well as under the ethics which govern the profession in question are totally unfounded and as such, the allegations against him are found to be totally un-called for and un-warranted as well. 23. However, propriety, decorum and decency require me not to venture any further on the allegations, level against the learned counsel who defended the accused in the Trial Court. In view of the above, I have found enough reason to accept the explanations, submitted by the learned defence counsel in connection with the order passed by this Court on 7.11.12 in Criminal Appeal 35 of 2012. 24. So situated, let me revert to the evidence on record to ascertain the sustainability of the judgment under challenge in the appeals under consideration. On a very careful perusal of the evidence on records, I found that the learned trial court has accurately and properly reproduced all the testimonies which the witnesses rendered before the court during trial. 25. 24. So situated, let me revert to the evidence on record to ascertain the sustainability of the judgment under challenge in the appeals under consideration. On a very careful perusal of the evidence on records, I found that the learned trial court has accurately and properly reproduced all the testimonies which the witnesses rendered before the court during trial. 25. For convenience of discussion, I find it necessary to re-reproduce the evidence or witnesses which the Trial Court had reproduced in the judgment: PW 1 H. Lalparmawii identified the accused and stated that during the month of February 2008 she was living at Saron Veng. Police Quarter. The accused was also living at Saron Veng. Police Quarter at that time. The accused was a police personnel working at MPRO and her deceased husband who was also a police personnel and as such they were living at Police Quarter. The accused was living in a quarter adjacent to their quarter. She had two daughters and four sons namely, H. Lalremmawii. H. Zosangliana, H. Lalremruata, H. Lalrosanga, H. Laltanpuia and the youngest was the victim. On 27.2.2008 in between 7 and 8 a.m. the accused came to her residence and requested her to provide tea. After he had tea he tried to go home and by the way he produced Rs. 20 note and requested her daughter the victim of 9 years to buy a cigarette for him. At the same time the accused told her daughter that he had a letter to be given to his mother who was supposed to have gone to Mirawng Veng. He then told her daughter that she should take the said letter from their house and on the way she purchased the cigarette for him. Then her daughter followed the accused to his quarter. After a few moment one of her daughter Lalremmawii went to the accused quarter and asked where the victim was. The accused replied her that he sent her sister/victim to buy cigarette and the accused replied again that he sent her. On being suspicious her daughter Lalremmawii entered into the room of the accused and when she looked upon for her sister, she found her sister staying under the bed of the accused. The accused replied her that he sent her sister/victim to buy cigarette and the accused replied again that he sent her. On being suspicious her daughter Lalremmawii entered into the room of the accused and when she looked upon for her sister, she found her sister staying under the bed of the accused. When her daughter Lalremmawrii saw the victim under the bed of the accused, she almost crying and her daughter brought the victim to their home and reported to her that the accused had sexual intercourse on her sister. At that time the accused also told her from outside their house by saying that he did not do anything and in replied her elder daughter Lalremmawrii said "you did" "you did". Again the accused came to their house and stood at the door and beg their pardon and said that when his mother came home how did he do. She also asked her daughter as to what accused had done on her and her daughter replied that the accused climbed on the top of her. Again she asked her daughter whether the accused inserted his private part and her daughter replied that accused inserted his private part into her private part. At that time some leaders of MHIP and local people came to their house. The MHIP leaders also asked her daughter what did the accused had done on her and her daughter replied them that the accused climbed on the top of her and inserted his private part into her private part and then she submitted the FIR to the Aizawl P/S. Her daughter was produced before the medical officer for examination and she accompanied her daughter and after medical examination, the Medical Officer who conducted the examination informed her that her hymen was absent. She identified Ex. P1 the FIR and her signature Ex. P1(a). PW 2 Prosecutrix identified the accused and stated that on 27.2.2008 while she was preparing to go to school the accused Lalhuapzauva came to their house to have tea and he told her to buy cigarette from the shop and he also told her that: there was a letter for someone and told her to bring the same from the bedroom. When she sent inside the bedroom to look for the letter he had told her to get it, accused followed her and he laid her down on the bed and he took down her underwear, he tried to rape her and she resisted as much as she could, she tried to get up but he forced her down. In the meantime Amawii, her elder sister suddenly entered the house then the accused got up and left the bedroom to join her sister. In another occasion while she was preparing to go to school, he had asked her to buy something for him and when she gave him the things she bought he took her to his bedroom and he took down her underwear and he also removed his underwear. He put his penis in her private part. PW 3 H. Lalremmauwii identified the accused and stated that on 27.2.2008 in the morning about 8 a.m. the accused Lalhuapzauva came to their house and requested to make a cup of tea for him. The accused being their close neighbor, he fold Puii (her sister-in-law) to prepare a cup of tea for the accused. While the accused was taking tea, he said to the victim to buy a cigarette for him and he first took out Rs. 20 from his pocket but did not give the same to the victim. Then the accused told the victim to get a letter from somebody to deliver to the house of Nu Chami from him. Thereafter, the accused left their house and the victim reluctantly followed the accused to receive the letter from the accused as stated. As soon as the accused and the victim entered in the house of the accused she could not hear the sound of the door opening and closing. She was feeling suspicious against the accused. He replied her from the bedroom and he came out from the bedroom and the zipper of his pants was opened. He asked him where his sister (the, victim) was and he replied saying he had told her to go out for something. As she did not believe what the accused had said, she went inside the bedroom of the accused. She did not find her but as she bent down under the bed, she found her sister (the victim) stuffed under the bed. As she did not believe what the accused had said, she went inside the bedroom of the accused. She did not find her but as she bent down under the bed, she found her sister (the victim) stuffed under the bed. Then she took her out and she held and took her to their house. In the beginning the accused denied that he did anything to the victim but later on when many people gathered in their house the accused apologized saying "Ka tihpalh a ni, min. ngaidam rawh" (I am sorry, please forgive me). Later her victim sister said that it was not the first time the accused had done and even before, twice in the past he had done the same thing inside the latrine. PW 4 Christie Fanai Sub-Inspector of Police identified the accused and stated that on 27.2.2008 FIR was lodged by H. Lalparmawii at Aizawl PS at around 3.20 a.m. and she registered the case as Aizawl PS case against the accused Lalhuapzauva. The case was endorsed to her for investigation. She had visited the spot, and the victim was sent to hospital for medical examination. During the investigation she had examined the accused Lalhuapzauva in which he admitted the fact. And site arrested the Lalhuapzauva on 28.2.2008 and after recording his statement he was sent to judicial custody. During, the course of her investigation she found a prima facie case u/s. 376(2)(f) against the accused Lalhuapzauva and accordingly she prepared charge-sheet and submitted it to the court for trial. Ex. PII was charge sheet and Ex. P-II(a) was her signature, Ex. PIII was the birth certificate of the victim. PW 5 Dr. Vanremmawii stated that in the year 2008 she was posted as Medical Officer at Civil Hospital, Aizawl, on 27.2.2008 she received requisition from Crime against Woman Cell, Aizawl for examination of the prosecutrix age about 9 years, resident of Saron Veng, Aizawl accordingly she conducted examination on the same day at about 1.05 p.m. in presence of female witnesses i.e. Dr. Ngurnunzami Sailo. She recorded her findings in the form and in her said examination the hymen of the prosecutrix was ruptured. Ex. P4 was her medical examination report and Ex. P4(a) was her signature. 26. Ngurnunzami Sailo. She recorded her findings in the form and in her said examination the hymen of the prosecutrix was ruptured. Ex. P4 was her medical examination report and Ex. P4(a) was her signature. 26. I find that the learned Trial Court did not reproduce what the prime witnesses has stated in their cross-examination that is why I also find it necessary to reproduce what those witnesses had stated in their cross-examination. The PW 2, the prosecutrix in her examination has stated that the accused did not insert his private part to her genital on the morning in question. 27. On the other hand, PW 1, the mother of the victim stated in her cross-examination that her daughter did not narrate the story to them but only answered to the query made to her. Similarly, the PW 3 in her cross-examination stated that she almost followed the accused and the prosecutrix to the house of former and raised hue and cry within minutes of her arrival in the frontage of the house of the accused person. 28. Above being the evidence on records, we need to know if such evidence make out allegations against the accused person. In order to know the answer to the above query, I have very carefully examined the evidence rendered by victim. Her evidence un-mistakably demonstrates that on the morning in question, she was persuaded by the accused person to go his residence on the pretext of her requiring to carry a letter to his mother who was said to be at the place which is situated in between the house of the prosecutrix and her school. 29. However, the accused followed her to his house and the moment she entered his house, the accused person dragged her to the bed, laid her there forcibly, undressed her as well and placed himself on her top. In the meantime, he also took off his underwear in attempt to commit rape on her. Here, it is worth noting that the prosecutrix in her cross-examination very clearly demonstrates that the accused did not insert his private organ into her private parts. 30. This evidence or the prosecutrix finds unfettered support from the testimony of her mother and sister who were examined as PW 1 and PW 3 respectively. Here, it is worth noting that the prosecutrix in her cross-examination very clearly demonstrates that the accused did not insert his private organ into her private parts. 30. This evidence or the prosecutrix finds unfettered support from the testimony of her mother and sister who were examined as PW 1 and PW 3 respectively. In her evidence, PW 3 categorically states that as soon as her sister left her house for the house of accused person in order to bring some letter from inside his house, the accused followed her and made entry to his house alongwith her sister. 31. She, however, suspected some foul play on the part of the accused person for which she came to the house of the accused person and started calling him by being infront of his house. Soon the accused came out of his house. When she enquired about her sister, the accused pleaded that she had already left his house. Not believing such a version of the accused person, she entered the house of accused person only to find her sister beneath the bed of the accused person. 32. The moment, she discovered the prosecutrix, stuffed under the bed of the accused person, she took her out and brought her to their house. The evidence, so rendered by PW 1, is also found to be in the line of evidence, rendered by PW 3 as well. Such evidence, coupled with the evidence of doctor without any set of doubt shows that on the morning in question, the accused tempted to commit rape on the prosecutrix. 33. We may note here that in her evidence, the doctor clearly states that she did not notice any injury on the private parts of the victim although she noticed redness on the outer parts of the private organ of the prosecutrix. Being so, in my consider opinion and on materials on records, it cannot be said that prosecution have established that accused committed rape on the victim on the morning of 22.2.2008. Nevertheless prosecution has successfully proved that the accused did attempt to commit rape on the prosecutrix. 34. We have noticed that there is indisputable evidence to show that moment after the alleged incident, the accused sought apology from the family members of the victim. He even repented that with what face he would meet his mother after such an incident. Nevertheless prosecution has successfully proved that the accused did attempt to commit rape on the prosecutrix. 34. We have noticed that there is indisputable evidence to show that moment after the alleged incident, the accused sought apology from the family members of the victim. He even repented that with what face he would meet his mother after such an incident. Moreover, the accused was seen coming out of his house on the arrival of sister of the prosecutrix in the frontage of his house with zip of his pent still open. 34A. Such undisputed revelations only served to show that accused had done something wrong to the victim in his house on the all eventful morning and in the fact and circumstances of the present case, such remorseful conduct on the part of accused, in my considered opinion occurred for the accused trying to commit rape on the prosecutrix. 35. I may also note here that referring me to the evidence of PW 1, the learned PP contends that the accused had committed rape on the prosecutrix on the morning aforesaid. In that connection, my attention has been drawn to the evidence of PW 1 who is found saying that on being asked by her as well as by the members of MHIP, the prosecutrix stated that accused had inserted his private organ to her genital. The fact that the doctor too found redness on the genital of prosecutrix only affirms that the accused had committed rape on the victim. 36. I have found that such a contention is far fetched one. The evidence rendered by mother of the prosecutrix cannot be read in isolation brushing aside the testimony of most vital witness in the case under consideration. In her cross-examination, the prosecutrix, in no uncertain terms, claims accused did not insert his private part to her genital. 36A. This evidence coupled with the fact that the prosecutrix was with the accused person in his house hardly for five minutes as well as the fact that the doctor did not notice any injury on the private parts of the victim doubly affirm that the accused could not commit rape on the prosecutrix on the morning aforesaid, of course, for some intervening circumstances which I have already narrated hereinbefore. 37. 37. The evidence on record very clearly shows that at the time relevant the prosecutrix was a girl of 9 years of age. This evidence remains totally unchallenged. This only reveals that at the time under consideration prosecutrix was a mirror girl well below age of 12 years of age. Therefore, the finding of the Trial Court that the accused's attempt to commit rape on a minor girl cannot be faulted with. 38. The learned counsel for the accused appellant has pointed out that the name the father of the prosecutrix as disclosed by her birth certificate issued by the concerned authority and the name of her father as disclosed by her own sister (PW 3) differs. The difference according learned counsel for the accused person goes a long way in showing that the testimony of none of the principal PWs can be accepted for their not divulging incident under consideration truthfully. 39. This is far from the truth. I have found that some apparent discrepancies occurred in the evidence, rendered by prosecution side on naming the father or the victim but when one looks the evidence very carefully more particularly the evidence of PW 1, the mother of PW 2 & PW 3, it would appear clear that the mother of the prosecutrix married for second time on the death of earlier husband. This explains well as to why there are some discrepancies in the evidence rendered by prosecution side in naming the father of the prosecutrix. 40. Coming to the allegations that behavior of prosecutrix was baffling at the time of consideration indicating that everything is not honky dory on the part of prosecutrix herself, I have found that evidently the prosecutrix was a young girl of 9 years of age at the time under consideration. As such, she cannot be expected to behave as an adult human being. 41. Quite contrary to it, the world, she lived in during the time of consideration is full of fantasy, fancy and dream far away from the reality. When one considers the behavior of the prosecutrix, a your girl of 9 years of age, he cannot find fault with prosecutrix hiding beneath the bed of the accused person when her sister arrived there to know what the accused is doing to her sister in his house. 42. When one considers the behavior of the prosecutrix, a your girl of 9 years of age, he cannot find fault with prosecutrix hiding beneath the bed of the accused person when her sister arrived there to know what the accused is doing to her sister in his house. 42. Nor can one read too much in prosecutrix going to the residence of the accused/appellant merely on his asking to bring some letter from inside his house, more so, when there was no possibility of the accused person going to his house when the later requested the prosecutrix to go to his house in order to take out one letter therefrom. Thus, I am not inclined to brush aside the testimony of prosecutrix only for the aforementioned alleged shortcomings in her behavior. 43. Here it is worth noting that there are some minor aberrations in the testimonies of the PWs, particularly, PW 1, PW 2 and PW 3. But by no stretched of imagination, those aberrations can be said to be serious enough to damage the credibility of those witnesses. Quite contrary to it, such minor shortcomings in the testimony of the PWs make their evidence more reliable, more trustworthy. 44. On point that deserves discussion here is that there is very convincing evidence on record to show that the relation between the accused and the family of the prosecutrix are cordial at all the points of time. In fact, they lived very peacefully over a very long period of time. This clearly indicates that the case under consideration was initiated for some very genuine, very compelling reasons. This also certifies the truthfulness of the allegations under consideration. 45. In view of what I have discussed hereinbefore, I am of the opinion that prosecution has successfully proved the charge under Section 376(2)(f)/ 511 IPC against the accused person and therefore, the learned Trial Court ought to have convicted him not, under section 376/ 511 IPC but under 376(2)(f)/ 511 IPC. Accordingly, I convict the accused person under the aforesaid provision of law. 46. It, is found that a minimum sentence in respect of offence under Section 376(2)(f)/ 511 IPC is prescribed and same is 5 years imprisonment and fine. In the event of imposing lesser punishment than prescribed under the law, the Court needs to assign special reason for doing so. 46. It, is found that a minimum sentence in respect of offence under Section 376(2)(f)/ 511 IPC is prescribed and same is 5 years imprisonment and fine. In the event of imposing lesser punishment than prescribed under the law, the Court needs to assign special reason for doing so. In this connection, I have heard the accused person through his engaged counsel. The learned counsel however, submits that this case may be remanded back to the Trial Court for de novo trial. 47. On the other hand, learned counsel for state appellant in Criminal Appeal No. 39 of 2012 has submitted that the minimum sentence prescribed under the laws needs to be imposed upon the accused person. According to him, a reading of Section 376(2)(f) read with Section 511 IPC clearly reveals that the minimum prescribed for the aforesaid offence is imprisonment for 5 years and fine. He urged this Court to impose the minimum punishment on the accused person. 48. On going through the materials on record, I have found that accused is a man of about 30 years of age working as a policeman at the relevant time. Moreover, the girl, who is subjected to sexual assault, is young girl of 9 years of age at the time under consideration. What is important is that the victim is also a next door neighbor of the accused person. All these speak clearly that the accused cannot be shown any leniency as far as imposing lesser punishment is concerned. 49. But then, on conviction, he is bound to lose his job. I have also found that he has old parents to maintain. On considering all the points both in favour and against of the accused/appellant, I feel that sentence imposed by Trial Court on the accused/appellant needs to be enhanced suitably to meet the ends of justice. 50. Accordingly, the accused is sentenced to suffer R.I. for 3 years and also to pay a fine of Rs. 50,000 in default R.I. another 1 year for offence under Section 376(2)(f)/ 511 IPC. 51. In the event of realization of fine, an entire amount should be paid to the victim through her mother. Consequently, the appeal preferred by state is allowed while it stands dismissed as far as the appeal preferred by accused/appellant is concerned. Return the LCR forthwith.