The reformation of the appellant during the period of trial and incarceration was a key factor in modifying the quantum of sentences, aligning with the reformative theory of punishment.

JUDGMENT :

FARJAND ALI, J.

1. The appellant has preferred this appeal under section 374 (2) of the Cr.P.C. being aggrieved of the judgment dated 01.06.2013 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Salumbar, District Udaipur in Sessions Case No. 44/2012, whereby he has been convicted and sentenced as under:

2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that on 25.02.2011, FIR No. 74/2011 for the offences under Sections 363, 376, 384/34 of the IPC was registered at the Police Station Salumber on the basis of the statement of the victim to the effect that one Parmanand @ Pannalal and the appellant frequently used to humiliate and threaten the victim and her sister and they also subjected them to sexual assault. On 22.02.2011, when they were going to their home from school, Parmanand and the present appellant came on a motorcycle and forcibly took them to Udaipur via Adiwat, Bamaniya, Badwali and Kewada Ki Naal. They kept them in the house of one Bheru Singh at Udaipur and did not return back. They remained there for two days, whereafter police found them and got recorded their statements. The police after usual investigation filed a charge-sheet against the accused persons for the offences under Sections 363, 366, 376 and 120-B of the IPC.

3. The learned trial court framed charges against the accused persons for the above offences and upon denial of guilt by them, commenced the trial. During the course of trial, as many as 20 witnesses were examined and 27 documents were exhibited. Thereafter, explanation was sought from the accused-appellant under Section 313 Cr.P.C. in which he refuted the prosecution allegations and claimed to be falsely implicate in the case. However, he did not choose to produce any evidence. Then, after hearing the learned Public Prosecutor and the defence counsel and meticulous appreciation of the evidence, learned trial Judge has convicted and sentenced the appellant as mentioned above vide judgment dated 01.06.2013, which is under assail before this court in the instant appeal.

4. After arguing on merits to some extent, learned counsel for the appellant does not wish to press the present appeal in respect of the judgment of conviction passed by the learned trial court and preferred to make submissions on the point of sentence only. He submits that the incident is of the year 2011. The appellant was a young boy aged 20 years at that time. The learned trial court has not found him guilty of offence under Sections 376 of the IPC. The appellant is not a person of criminal nature, which is revealing from the fact that he is on bail since the year 2013 and is living peacefully since then and no report contrary to that has been received by this court. No adverse remark has been passed over his conduct in the impugned judgment. He has faced the criminal proceedings for a period of more than 12 years and has remained behind the bars for significant period during trial and thereafter from the date of passing of the impugned judgment till grant of bail by this court, therefore, taking a benevolent view, the sentences awarded to him may be reduced to the period already undergone.

5. Learned public prosecutor has, of course, been able to defend the case