The court applied the principles of deterrence and correction in sentencing the appellant under Section 376 IPC, considering the period already undergone by the appellant.

JUDGMENT

1. This criminal appeal under Section 374 (2) Cr.P.C. has been preferred claiming the following reliefs:

"It is, therefore, prayed that the appeal may kindly be allowed, and the appellant be acquitted from the charges and judgment and sentence passed by the trial court be quashed."

2. The matter pertains to an incident which occurred in the year 1994 and the present appeal has been pending since the year 1996.

3. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that this Criminal Appeal has been preferred against the impugned judgment dated 28.02.1995 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Chittorgarh in Sessions Case No.154/1994 whereby the appellant was convicted for the offence under Section 376 IPC and sentenced to undergo five years R.I. and a fine of Rs. 100/-, in default of payment of which he was ordered to further undergo one month's R.I.

4. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that a report was submitted on 10.05.1994 before the police regarding the offence, which had taken place on 06.05.1994. The allegation is that the prosecutrix was guarding the crops in the field when the appellant committed forcible rape upon her by threatening her with an axe. Learned counsel further submits that there are gross discrepancies in the statements of the witnesses so much so that neither any injury has been proved nor any kind of FSL report has been brought on record.

5. Learned counsel also submits that there is no kind of medical or scientific evidence which could corroborate the statement of the prosecutrix. Learned counsel further submits that all the witnesses, who deposed, were the trusted witnesses and the delay of four days was not explained. Learned counsel has also taken this Court towards the statement rendered by the prosecutrix under Section 161 Cr.P.C. Learned counsel further submits that the doctor was not examined, and thus, even though the allegation of the prosecutrix is there, but a serious shadow has been cast upon the prosecution case.

6. Learned counsel for the appellant has further taken this Court towards the version of the medical jurist report, which did not suggest any injuries on any part of the body of the prosecutrix; the opinion of medical jurist was reserved till receipt of FSL report, but the FSL report has not been put on record.

7. Learned counsel however, submits that the sentence so awarded to the appellant was suspended by this Hon'ble Court, vide order dated 15.03.1995 passed in S.B. Criminal Misc. Bail No. 94/1995.

8. Learned counsel makes a limited submission that without making any interference on merits/conviction, the sentence awarded to the present appellant may be substituted with the period of sentence already undergone by him.

9. Learned Public Prosecutor opposes the same.

10. This Court is conscious of the judgments rendered in, Alister Anthony Pareira Vs. State of Maharashtra (2012) 2 SCC 648 and Haripada Das Vs. State of W.B. (1998) 9 SCC 678 wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court observed as under:-

Alister Anthony Pareira (Supra)

"There is no straitjacket formula for sentencing an accused on proof of crime. The courts have evolved certain principles: twin objective of the sentencing policy is deterrence and correction. What sentence would meet the ends of justice depends on the facts and circumstances of each case and the court must keep in mind the gravity of the crime, motive for the crime, nature of the offence and all other attendant circumstances."

Haripada Das (Supra)

"considering the fact that the respondent had already undergone detention for some period and the case is pending for a pretty long time for which he had suffered both financial hardship and mental agony and also considering the fact that he had been released on bail as far back as on 17-1-1986, we feel that the ends of justice will be met in the facts of the case if the sentence is reduced to the period already undergone"

11. This Court finds that the loopholes, which have arrived in the prosecution stor