JUDGMENT Learned counsel for the appellant argued the matter only on the sentence. He also relied upon below mentioned authorities in support of his submission that the appellant was in love with the prosecutrix, and that in such cases, the courts have been taking lenient view. It is argued that he was and he was hardly aged 21 years and the offence was committed while in his youth: (1) Budhiya Chhaganlal Vaghri v. State of Gujarat [ 1991(2) GLH 263 ] (2) Bhure Bankelal Nunere (Thakor) v. State of Gujarat [2009 (0) GLHEL-HC-221689] (3) Mohammad Zuber Noormohmad Changwadia v. State of Gujarat [ 2000 (1) GLR 396 ] 2. It was urged that a fine of Rs.37,000/-imposed by the trial court has already been paid by him, out of which, Rs.25,000/-has been received by the victim as compensation. The argument is that the victim is now well settled in her family, and that looking to the age and the background in which the offence was committed, the court may show leniency, and reduce the sentence to the one already undergone. 3. Learned A.P.P. has vehemently opposed the above arguments primarily with a contention that the manner in which the offence was committed was as gruesome as can be. It was argued that the prosecutrix was not willing to keep any relations with the appellant, and it was misconceived for him to propagate love affair and then to throw her into the river, and rape her for as many as three times during the period of one night. He argued that the cases relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellant can be of no assistance to him in view of the fact that none of them were dealing with a gruesome offence like the present one. 4. This court is in complete agreement with the submission made by the learned A.P.P. The cases relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellant did not deal with the situation similar to the one on hand. In all of those cases, there was two way attraction of youth, and elopement was by consent and the intercourse was also by consent. Only age factor was a barrier. 5. In all of those cases, there was two way attraction of youth, and elopement was by consent and the intercourse was also by consent. Only age factor was a barrier. 5. In the instant case, the appellant propagated love unilaterally, though the subsequent acts of the appellant cannot be nomenclated as `love’ inasmuch as he threw the victim into the river and then jumped into the river, saved her and took her to a nearby field and raped her thrice. It is therefore difficult to countenance the submission that it was only on account of love affair that the offence in question was committed. It appears to be a sheer and sheer lust, which drew the appellant to commit the offence in a most gruesome and heinous manner. In such cases, this court would not show leniency so as to acknowledge such gruesome acts. 6. In the circumstances, no substance is found in the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant. The appeal fails, and is therefore dismissed.