IMPORTANT POINT
Many factors which may not be relevant to determine guilt, must be seen with a human approach, at stage of sentencing. While imposing sentence, all relevant factors are to be considered, keeping in mind facts and circumstances of each case.

JUDGMENT

R. Subhash Reddy, J.

Leave granted.

2. This appeal has been preferred, aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 06.06.2019 passed by the High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench in Criminal Appeal No. 100201 of 2016. By the aforesaid order, the High Court has confirmed conviction/sentence of the appellants herein for offences under Sections 344 and 366, IPC.

3. The appellants herein, along with other accused, were charge-sheeted in Crime No. 115/2014 on the file of Sub-Urban PS, Dharwad, for offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 120-B, 366, 344, 376, 506 read with Section 149, IPC and Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (for short 'POCSO' Act). The Sessions Court has convicted accused no.1 for offences punishable under Sections 344, 366, IPC and Section 6 of POCSO Act. So far as the appellants are concerned, they were convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 344, 366 read with Section 34, IPC and were sentenced to undergo Simple Imprisonment for one year for offence under Section 344, IPC and a fine of Rs.2000/- and S.I. for two years for the offence under Section 366, IPC and a fine of Rs.5000/-. Aggrieved by the conviction recorded and sentence imposed, they preferred appeal to High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench. Same is dismissed by the impugned judgment dated 06.06.2019. Hence, this appeal by accused nos.4 and 5.

4. PW-2 is the daughter of complainant PW-1, who lodged a complaint on 08.05.2014 before the Police. In the complaint, it is alleged that her daughter had gone to bring chips and milk from a nearby shop but she did not return home for about half an hour. Thereafter the complainant searched for her and had come to know that her daughter went in an Auto Rickshaw. According to the complainant/PW-1, prior to the said incident, accused No.1, who was residing near the house of the complainant, was having love affair with PW-2- victim girl and he was insisting to perform her marriage with him. The complainant explained to him that she is not of marriageable age and his request will be considered after the victim attains the marriageable age. Therefore, the complainant/PW-1, suspected the role of accused No.1 and complaint was lodged before the police.

5. Pursuant to registration of crime, the investigation was taken up. After investigation, it was revealed that accused No.1, with the help of other accused Nos. 2, 4, 5, 8 and 9, conspired together and kidnapped the minor girl PW-2, in a car provided by the appellants/accused Nos. 4 and 5. All of them were prosecuted for offences, referred above.

6. To prove the offence alleged against the accused, prosecution has examined, in all, 16 witnesses. The mother of the victim girl is the complainant and she is examined as PW-1; PW-2 is victim girl; PW-3 and PW-4 are Medical Officers; PW-5 is the owner of house at Vishwanathhalli, where victim girl and accused No.1 have stayed for sometime; PW-6 is the driver of the car; PW-7 to PW-13 are panch witnesses for different panchanamas; PW-14 and 15 are Investigation Officers.

7. So far as the appellants are concerned, after completion of trial, the Trial Court has come to a conclusion that prosecution has proved the guilt of accused nos. 4 and 5 only for offences punishable under Sections 344 and 366 read with Section 34 of the IPC. Accused No. 1 was, in addition, found guilty of offence punishable under Section 6 of POCSO Act. All the accused were convicted accordingly. The conviction recorded and Sentence imposed on the above accused, is confirmed by the High Court, by dismissing the criminal appeal filed by them, by impugned judgment dated 06.06.2019.

8. As this Court has issued notice limited to the quantum of Sentence only, it is not necessary to delve in detail on the merits of the matter, so far as conviction is concerned.

9. We have heard Sri Anand Sanjay M. Nuli, learned counsel appearing for the appellants and Sri Shubhranshu Padhi, learned counsel appearing for the res