Judgment K.S. Jhaveri, J. 1. Present appeal is directed against the judgment and order 28/02/2012 passed by the learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Banaskantha at Palanpur in Sessions Case No. 54 of 2011, whereby, the respondent herein - original accused No. 2 came to be convicted for the offence punishable under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for brevity, 'the IPC') and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years and a fine of Rs. 2,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to undergo further simple imprisonment for six months. 2. Brief facts of the prosecution case are that a complaint before the Palanpur Taluka Police Station came to be lodged against the accused stating that on 09/04/2011, the original accused kidnapped the niece of the complainant, aged 12 years, from their lawful possession and raped her against her will and thus, the accused committed the alleged offence punishable under Sections 363, 366, 376 and 114 of the IPC. 2.1 Pursuant to the complaint, investigation was carried out. After investigation, charge-sheet was filed and as the case was triable by the Court of Sessions, it was committed to the Sessions Court, at Palanpur. The trial Court framed charge against the accused. The accused pleaded not guilty to the charge and claimed to be tried. Therefore, the prosecution produced oral as well as documentary evidence. 2.2 In order to bring home the charge against the respondents-original accused, the prosecution has examined as many as 15 witnesses and also produced several documentary evidence. 2.3 At the end of the trial, Further Statements of the accused under Section 313 of the Code were recorded and after hearing the arguments on behalf of prosecution and the defence, the learned Sessions Judge convicted the respondent herein - original accused No. 2 as aforesaid by impugned judgment and order. 2.4 Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the aforesaid judgment and order passed by the Sessions Court, the State has preferred the present appeal for enhancement of sentence. 3. We have heard Mr. L.R. Pujari, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, for the State and Mr. P.H. Buch, learned advocate for the respondent herein - original accused No. 2. 3.1 Mr. 2.4 Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the aforesaid judgment and order passed by the Sessions Court, the State has preferred the present appeal for enhancement of sentence. 3. We have heard Mr. L.R. Pujari, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, for the State and Mr. P.H. Buch, learned advocate for the respondent herein - original accused No. 2. 3.1 Mr. Pujari, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the appellant - State, contended that the prosecution has successfully proved the case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt and though as per School Leaving Certificate the case falls under the offence punishable under Section 376(2)(f), the trial Court has wrongly awarded the lesser sentence to the respondent - accused No. 2 of only for five years and looking to the age of the victim and the conduct of the accused and considering the provisions of law, this is a fit case for enhancement of sentence. 4. Whereas, Mr. Buch, learned advocate for the respondent herein - original accused No. 2, pointed out that in view of the medical evidence, the age of the victim is above 14 years and conviction is for the offence punishable under Section 376 and therefore, no enhancement is required and accordingly, the present appeal for enhancement of sentence, may be dismissed. 5. It has been recently held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Raj Bala Vs. State of Haryana & Ors. etc. etc. in Criminal Appeal Nos. 1049 to 1050 of 2015 decided on 18/08/2015, more particularly, in paragraph Nos. 1 and 2 as under: "1. In Gopal Singh v. State of Uttrakhand, while focusing on the gravity of the crime and the concept of proportionality as regards the punishment, the Court had observed:- "Just punishment is the collective cry of the society. While the collective cry has to be kept uppermost in the mind, simultaneously the principle of proportionality between the crime and punishment cannot be totally brushed aside. The principle of just punishment is the bedrock of sentencing in respect of a criminal offence. A punishment should not be disproportionately excessive. The concept of proportionality allows a significant discretion to the Judge but the same has to be guided by certain principles. The principle of just punishment is the bedrock of sentencing in respect of a criminal offence. A punishment should not be disproportionately excessive. The concept of proportionality allows a significant discretion to the Judge but the same has to be guided by certain principles. In certain cases, the nature of culpability, the antecedents of the accused, the factum of age, the potentiality of the convict to become a criminal in future, capability of his reformation and to lead an acceptable life in the prevalent milieu, the effect -- propensity to become a social threat or nuisance, and sometimes lapse of time in the commission of the crime and his conduct in the interregnum bearing in mind the nature of the offence, the relationship between the parties and attractability of the doctrine of bringing the convict to the value-based social mainstream may be the guiding factors. Needless to emphasise, these are certain illustrative aspects put forth in a condensed manner. We may hasten to add that there can neither be a straitjacket formula nor a solvable theory in mathematical exactitude. It would be dependent on the facts of the case and rationalised judicial discretion. Neither the personal perception of a Judge nor self-adhered moralistic vision nor hypothetical apprehensions should be allowed to have any play. For every offence, a drastic measure cannot be thought of. Similarly, an offender cannot be allowed to be treated with leniency solely on the ground of discretion vested in a court. The real requisite is to weigh the circumstances in which the crime has been committed and other concomitant factors which we have indicated hereinbefore and also have been stated in a number of pronouncements by this Court. On such touchstone, the sentences are to be imposed. The discretion should not be in the realm of fancy. It should be embedded in the conceptual essence of just punishment." [Emphasis added] 2. Seven years prior to that, in Shailesh Jasvantbhai v. State of Gujarat, it has been held that:- "7. The law regulates social interests, arbitrates conflicting claims and demands. Security of persons and property of the people is an essential function of the State. It could be achieved through instrumentality of criminal law. Undoubtedly, there is a cross-cultural conflict where living law must find answer to the new challenges and the courts are required to mould the sentencing system to meet the challenges. Security of persons and property of the people is an essential function of the State. It could be achieved through instrumentality of criminal law. Undoubtedly, there is a cross-cultural conflict where living law must find answer to the new challenges and the courts are required to mould the sentencing system to meet the challenges. The contagion of lawlessness would undermine social order and lay it in ruins. Protection of society and stamping out criminal proclivity must be the object of law which must be achieved by imposing appropriate sentence. Therefore, law as a cornerstone of the edifice of "order" should meet the challenges confronting the society. Friedman in his Law in Changing Society stated that: "State of criminal law continues to be--as it should be--a decisive reflection of social consciousness of society." Therefore, in operating the sentencing system, law should adopt the corrective machinery or deterrence based on factual matrix. By deft modulation, sentencing process be stern where it should be, and tempered with mercy where it warrants to be. The facts and given circumstances in each case, the nature of the crime, the manner in which it was planned and committed, the motive for commission of the crime, the conduct of the accused, the nature of weapons used and all other attending circumstances are relevant facts which would enter into the area of consideration. 8. Therefore, undue sympathy to impose inadequate sentence would do more harm to the justice system to undermine the public confidence in the efficacy of law, and society could not long endure under such serious threats. It is, therefore, the duty of every court to award proper sentence having regard to the nature of the offence and the manner in which it was executed or committed, etc. This position was illuminatingly stated by this Court in Sevaka Perumal v. State of T.N." [Emphasis supplied] And again:- "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. This position was illuminatingly stated by this Court in Sevaka Perumal v. State of T.N." [Emphasis supplied] And again:- "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. The punishment to be awarded for a crime must not be irrelevant but it should conform to and be consistent with the atrocity and brutality with which the crime has been perpetrated, the enormity of the crime warranting public abhorrence and it should "respond to the society's cry for justice against the criminal"."" 6. We have examined the matter carefully and gone through the evidence on record. We have re-appreciated and re-evaluated the evidence on the touchstone of the latest decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court. We accordingly find that the trial Court while considering the evidence on record, has very elaborately discussed the evidence adduced before it. Further, the learned advocate for the accused is not in a position to show any evidence to take a contrary view in the matter or that the approach of the Court below is vitiated by some manifest illegality or that the decision is perverse or that the Court below has ignored the material evidence on record. In that view of the matter, we are of the considered opinion that the Court below was completely justified in passing impugned judgment and order and we are in complete agreement with the reasonings given and the findings arrived at by the trial Court and therefore, we are not inclined to disturb the same. However, so far as the aspect of sentence imposed by the trial Court of five years' rigorous imprisonment is concerned, looking to the provision of law, in our opinion, the same is inadequate and is required to be enhanced, as minimum sentence prescribed for the offence punishable under Section 376 is seven years and also, the learned trial Judge has not given any reasons for awarding the lesser punishment and hence, to that extent, the impugned judgment and order of the trial Court is required to be modified. 7. 7. In view of the aforesaid discussion, present appeal succeeds and the impugned judgment and order dated 28/02/2012 passed by the learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Banaskantha at Palanpur in Sessions Case No. 54 of 2011 is modified to the aforesaid extent and it is held that the respondent - original accused No. 2 - Pradhanji @ Pratapji Kapurji Thakore shall have to undergo seven years' rigorous imprisonment instead of five years' rigorous imprisonment as has been imposed by the trial Court. Accordingly, if the respondent - original accused No. 2 - Pradhanji @ Pratapji Kapurji Thakore is on bail, he is directed to surrender before the concerned jail authority within 10 weeks from today to undergo the remaining sentence and his bail bond shall stand cancelled. Registry to return the R&P, if any, to the trial Court forthwith. Appeal Allowed.