Bavo @ Manubhai Ambalal Thakore vs State of Gujarat

Bhagwati Prasad, J.—The present appeal is filed by the appellant-accused feeling aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 18th March 2004 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kheda District at Anand in Sessions Case No. 195 of 2002 whereby the learned Sessions Judge was pleased to convict the appellant-accused for the offence punishable under Sections 376 and 506(2) of IPC and sentenced him to undergo life imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 20,000/- in default of which to further undergo RI for 3 years. The case of the prosecution according to complainant-Ramilaben is that on 2.5.2002 in the morning her husband had gone to work and she was present in her house along with her three children. At that time, complainant''s daughter, Smita, aged 7 years was suffering from pain in her finger and therefore she called the appellant for taking her to doctor. Therefore, the appellant took the victim to a doctor at about 10 AM and at about 11.30 AM the victim came home alone limping and crying. When the complainant asked the victim as to what happened, Smita told her about the incident. Therefore, she went to the house of the appellant, but he was not present. When her husband came home in the evening, she informed him about the incident and thereafter lodged the complaint with police on 5th May 2002 at Umreth Police Station. The police after conducting the investigation filed the charge sheet before the court of the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Umreth on 7th July 2002. Since the case is exclusively triable by the court of Sessions, the learned Magistrate committed the case to the Sessions Court.

The learned Sessions Judge framed the charge at Exhibit 7. The accused-appellant pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. The learned Sessions Judge after conducting the trial convicted and sentenced the appellant-accused as above. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant. In the instant case, the girl aged 7 years old was ravished by the accused-appellant. The testimony of the girl has been recorded. The girl has corroborated the story as set up by the prosecution case. Nothing has been elicited in the cross-examination, which has not been able to disbelieve the testimony of the girl. The learned counsel for the appellant stated that in the instant case the maximum sentence of life has been awarded to a boy of 19 years of age. We have considered the submissions. When the boy may be of little over adolescent bracket of the age, but, then, having done an act of brutality with a girl of 7 years, we do not see any reason for interfering with the conviction and sentence recorded by the trial court. The facts of the case warrant that the conviction and sentence as awarded by the trial court be maintained. Accordingly, we see no force in the appeal. The appeal is dismissed. The accused to serve out his sentence.