The gravity of the offence, victim's mental condition, and DNA evidence are crucial in determining the conviction and sentence in rape cases.

1. Appellant along with Asha Devi and Poonam Chauhan had faced trial under Section 376(2)(c) Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as 'I.P.C.') in FIR No. 223 dated 6.8.1994 registered at Police Station Jawahar Nagar, Jaipur under Section 376/120-B I.P.C. Trial court vide judgment/order dated 26.02.2002 ordered the conviction and sentence of the appellant under Section 376(2)(c) I.P.C. Co-accused Asha Devi and Poonam Chauhan were acquitted of the charges framed against them. Aggrieved against his conviction and sentence by the trial court, appellant preferred S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 341/2002 in this court. Vide order dated 3.1.2007, appeal was allowed and the conviction and sentence of the appellant was set aside and the case was remitted to the trial court for re-trial.

2. The operative part of the judgment dated 3rd January, 2007 reads as under:-

"5. In the instant case as already noticed, I am of the opinion that retrial of the case is necessary. So far as the position of law is concerned, in the retrial the evidence already recorded at the initial trial cannot be erased or wiped out from the record of the case. Learned trial Judge therefore has to decide the case on the basis of evidence already on record and the additional evidence of Jai Laxmi @ Suraiya, whose statement shall now be recorded under section 311 CrPC. The learned trial court however shall be at liberty to recall the witnesses already examined as well as other witnesses whose evidence is essential to arrive at the truth and just decision of the case.

6. In the ultimate analysis I am of the opinion that in the absence of statement of prosecutrix Jai Laxmi @ Suraiya, the conviction and sentence of the appellant is unmerited.

7. For these reasons, I dispose of instant appeal in the following terms:-

(i) The judgment of learned trial court as well as conviction and sentence of appellant under section 376(2)(c) IPC shall stand set aside.

(ii) The case is remitted to learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 1 (Fast Track) Jaipur City for retrial. Record of the case be sent back to learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 1 (Fast Track) Jaipur City.

(iii) As a consequence of setting aside the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence of appellant it is not required to keep the appellant behind the bars. Learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No. 1 Jaipur City therefore is directed to release the appellant Laddu Gopal on bail provided he furnishes personal bond in the sum of Rs. 50,000/- with one surety of the like amount to ensure his presence on each day of the trial. Ten days time is granted to furnish bail bonds.

(iv) The Deputy Registrar (Judicial) is directed to immediately remit the case file to learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No. 1 Jaipur City, Jaipur with a copy of this judgment."

3. On re-trial, appellant was convicted and sentenced by the trial court under Section 376(2)(c) I.P.C. vide judgment/order dated 28.08.2017 and the appellant was sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rupees two lacs (in default of payment of fine, appellant shall further undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year). Hence, the present appeal by the appellant.

4. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the appellant has been falsely involved in this case. After retrial, trial court has erred in awarding higher sentence of imprisonment to the appellant. Initially, appellant was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years, whereas, after re-trial, appellant has been sentenced to undergo life imprisonment. Appellant was working as a sweeper in the male ward of the Retarded Woman and Child Rehabilitation Home, Sethi Colony, Jaipur (hereinafter referred to as 'Home'). Whenever, the sweeper posted in the female ward was on leave, appellant used to work in the female ward while accompanied by a female employee.

5. Learned state counsel has opposed the appeal and has submitted that keeping in view the nature