Point of Law : Section 376(2) (i) of IPC is pertaining to rape of a woman when she is under sixteen years of age. Even under Section 376(2)(i) of IPC, the minimum sentence imposed is 10 years.

JUDGMENT :

1. The State has filed this appeal under Section 377(1) (b) of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Cr.P.C.’, for short) challenging the inadequate sentence of imprisonment imposed against the accused.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties herein are referred to with their original ranks occupied by them before the trial Court.

3. Brief factual matrix leading to the case is as under:

The P.S.I. of Mundaragi has charge sheeted the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 363, 342, 343, 376(i) and 506 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as ‘IPC’ for short) and Sections 4 and 5(L) of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offices Act, 2012 (hereinafter referred to as ‘POCSO Act’, for short). According to prosecution on 21.05.2014, the victim came to Mundaragi for attending the marriage of their relative and accused came there in a car bearing No.KA-37/A-3170 and then persuaded the victim girl to accompany him and around about 1 O’clock, he kidnapped the victim girl in the said car and took her to his sister’s house situated in Savadi village of Ron Taluk by introducing the victim as his wife. It is also alleged that accused had kept the victim in the house of his sister and had forcible sexual intercourse over her in spite of her protest and thereafter confined her in a rented house situated in Koppal wherein he repeatedly had sexual intercourse with the victim in spite of her protest. He had also threatened her when she attempted to contact her parents. The complainant has lodged a missing complaint and later on the victim was traced in the company of the accused and she was secured by the police and then she was subjected to medical examination. She has also given statement under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. before the learned Magistrate. Then the charge sheet came to be submitted against the accused for the above said offences.

4. The accused was arrested and was remanded to judicial custody. He was represented by the counsel and prosecution papers were furnished to him and charges framed against him were read over and explained to him and he pleaded not guilty. Then the prosecution examined in all 29 witnesses as PW-1 to PW-29 and placed reliance on 44 documents marked as Exs.P-1 to P-44. Further, prosecution has also placed reliance on 6 material objects marked as M.Os.1 to 6. After conclusion of evidence of the prosecution, the statement of accused under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. was recorded to enable the accused to explain the incriminating evidence appearing against him. The case of accused is of total denial and he did not choose to lead any oral or documentary evidence in support of his case. Thereafter, the learned Special Judge after hearing the arguments and after perusing the material evidence placed on record, has convicted the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 363, 342, 343, 376(i) and 506 of IPC and Sections 4 and 5(L) of POCSO Act and passed the following sentence :

Accused is sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for 5 years and to pay fine of Rs.10,000/- in default to undergo SI for 1 year for the offence punishable under Section 363 of IPC.

He is sentenced to undergo RI for 7 years and to pay fine of Rs.30,000/- in default to undergo RI for 2 years for the offence punishable under Section 376(i) of IPC and Sections 4 and 5(L) of POCSO Act.

He is further sentenced to undergo SI for 6 months for the offence punishable under Section 342 of IPC.

He is further sentenced to undergo SI for 1 year for the offence punishable under Section 343 of IPC.

He is further sentenced to undergo SI for 2 years and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/- in default to undergo SI for 3 months for the offence punishable under Section 506 of IPC.

The maximum sentence imposed was 7 years for the offence under Section 376(i) of IPC and Sections 4 and 5(L) of POCSO Act and he directed that all sentences shall run concurrently.

5. Being aggrieved by the sentence, the State has filed