The main legal point established in the judgment is that the punishment for heinous crimes such as rape should be proportionate to the gravity of the offence and should serve as a deterrent. The court emphasized the need for appropriate punishment and highlighted the limited discretion to award a sentence lesser than the minimum.

M.R. Shah, J.

1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned 4th Additional Sessions Judge, Anand (hereinafter referred to as "the learned trial Court") in Sessions Case No. 38/2011 by which while convicting the respondent-original accused for the offence punishable under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code the learned trial Court has imposed the minimum sentence provided under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code i.e. 7 years' Rigorous Imprisonment, State has preferred the present Appeal under Section 377 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for enhancement of the sentence.

2. At the outset, it is required to noted that by the impugned judgment and order the learned trial Court has held the respondent-original accused guilty for the offence punishable under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code having committed rape on a minor girl/victim aged 16 years. However, while convicting the respondent-original accused for the offence punishable under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code the learned trial Court has imposed the sentence of 7 years' Rigorous Imprisonment i.e. minimum sentence provided under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code. The respondent-original accused has not challenged his conviction for the offence punishable under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code, and therefore, as such, the impugned judgment and order of conviction convicting the respondent-original accused for the offence punishable under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code has attained finality so far as the respondent-original accused is concerned, and therefore, the short question which is posed for consideration of this Court is, whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned trial Court is justified in imposing the sentence minimum provided under Section 376of the Indian Penal Code i.e. 7 years' Rigorous Imprisonment?

3. Ms. Moxa Thakkar, learned APP appearing on behalf of the State has vehemently submitted that the learned trial Court has materially erred in imposing the sentence of 7 years' Rigorous Imprisonment only i.e. minimum provided under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code. It is submitted that while exercising the discretion at the time of awarding the sentence the learned trial Court has not exercised the discretion judiciously and has not appreciated the gravity of the offence committed by the respondent-original accused. It is submitted that as such the sentence imposed by the learned trial Court is inadequate, disproportionate, not commensurate with the gravity of the offence.

3.1 It is further submitted by Ms. Moxa Thakkar, learned APP that the reasons which are given by the learned trial Court while awarding the sentence less than the minimum provided under the Act are not germane and/or it cannot be said that cogent reasons have been given by the learned trial Court while awarding the sentence. It is further submitted by Ms. Moxa Thakkar, learned APP that as such it can be said that while not awarding appropriate and adequate punishment for the offence punishable under Section 376 of the Indian penal Code, it can be said that learned trial Court has failed to perform his duty and/or has failed to exercise the discretion judiciously. Relying upon the recent decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Satish Kumar Jayantilal Dabgar vs. State of Gujarat, (2015) 7 SCC 359 and the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Aero Traders (P) Ltd. vs. Ravinder Kumar Suri, (2004) 8 SCC 307 and in the case of Sumer Singh vs. Surajbhan, (2014) 7 SCC 323 she has vehemently submitted that while awarding the sentence not only the learned trial Court has not exercised the discretion judiciously but even has failed to appreciate and/or consider the purpose and object of imposing adequate sentence/punishment. Relying upon the aforesaid decisions it is submitted that in the aforesaid decision it is observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that, "when it is said t