PALSHIKAR, J.

( 1 ) BEING aggrieved by the judgment and order of acquittal dt. 19-12-78 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 1, Hanumangarh in sessions case No. 93/77, the State of Rajasthan has preferred this appeal challenging the acquittal on several grounds mentioned in the memo of appeal. The appeal was admitted in 1979.

( 2 ) THIS appeal has come up for hearing today on 29-4-99. Leave to appeal was granted and appeal was admitted exactly twenty years ago on 20th April, 1979. While admitting the appeal, the accused was directed to be arrested and released on furnishing bail in the sum of Rs. 5000/ -. The accused is on bail since then for last twenty years.

( 3 ) REASONS for pendency of this appeal and appeals of this kind is required to be mentioned at this stage as it is only after twenty years thereabouts that this Court has reached the stage of taking up for consideration non-custodial appeals i. e. appeals where the accused person is not in custody either after conviction or after acquittal and the judgment of conviction or acquittal, as the case may be is pending consideration in this Court and the accused is enlarged on bail pending such consideration. It has been an established tradition of this Court as is also prevalent in many of the High Courts in the country to take up with priority for hearing criminal appeals in which the accused or convict, as the case may be is in jail custody and since the question of his liberty guaranteed by Articles 19 and 20 of the Constitution of India is in issue and concerned utmost priority of all available nature is given to those appeals. The necessary consequence of it being pendency of appeals in which the accused or convict, as the case may be is enlarged on bail and is not deprived of his right to liberty. Without going into the multifarious reasons of pendency of cases in the High Courts and the causes for it, it is sufficient for the purposes of this case to point out that mounting arrears is one of the major causes for the pendency of this appeal. It is true that appeal is pending for long time (twenty years) and it does seriously wave with this Court every time such appeal whether against conviction or acquittal comes up for hearing.

( 4 ) IN the instant case, the accused has been acquitted of an offence punishable under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code. Rape of a minor girl is indisputably a heinous crime which must be punished regardless of time laid in relation of the offence and its punishment. The offences of such kind are on the increase. One of the basic theories of punishment is deterrent example that follows from punishment. It is consequently necessary for the maintenance of Rule of Law that the guilty of such heinous crime are punished regardless of time. Punishment to such accused persons must act as a deterrent to the possible criminal who intend to violate chastity and integrity of a person. It is undisputable that the body of a woman is violated against her desire, her mind and soul is also permanently injured. After keeping in mind these reasons that we propose to approach this appeal. We are fortified in our view that the delay in hearing of the appeal or the pendency of the appeal for long period is no cause for not interfering with an order of acquittal. The Supreme Court of India has held in AIR 1996 SC 3041, State of Karnataka v. Moin Patel page 3042 :"in the instant case the Supreme Court found that the judgment of the High Court acquitting the accused from charge of committing murder was not reasonable but was a laboured one. Material evidence has been ignored, unimpeachable evidence has been rejected on surmises and conjectures, undue importance has been given to and emphasis laid on trivial and ignorable contradictions and some conclusions have been drawn which are self-contradictory. In fine, on the materials on record it was impossible to accept the conclusions of the High Court that the prosecution had failed to