The court emphasized the societal interest in imposing appropriate punishment and deterrence in cases of sexual offences, highlighting the need for a balanced approach to sentencing.

Virender Singh, CJ.

At the very outset, it needs to be mentioned here that since the appellant was not in a position to engage any lawyer to defend his case by filing an appeal against the impugned judgment, Jharkhand State Legal Services Authority provided the services of its panel lawyer. It is how the instant appeal was filed in this Court, in which there was delay of 1711 days, which stood condoned, vide order dated 14.01.2015 and, thereafter, the main appeal also admitted to hearing on 28.01.2015. Since it is a case falling under section 376 IPC, therefore, priority was given to it for its final consideration over and above other pending appeals.

2. Appellant Sona Ram Hembram (for short to be referred to as ‘accused’ only) aged 45 years was charged for the offence punishable under section 376 IPC for allegedly committing rape upon a girl (daughter of PW Smt. Menna Gope) who was hardly of the age 13-14 years on the alleged date of commission of offence. He now stands convicted for the said charge vide impugned judgment of learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Chaibasa, dated 2nd of July 2009 and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 10 years and a fine of Rs.5000, in default thereof, to further undergo imprisonment for a period of 3 months.

3. We have heard Mr. Rajesh Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the accused and Md. Hatim, learned APP representing the State of Jharkhand.

4. Although learned counsel for the appellant has not joined issue vis-à-vis the merits of the appeal and confined his prayer only with regard to the reduction of substantive sentence submitting that the period already undergone by the accused till date which turns out to be 7 years 3 months and 16 odd days out of the total sentence of 10 years slapped upon him, vide impugned judgment, would meet the ends of justice, yet we being the court of first appeal, have rescanned the entire prosecution evidence and find that the prosecution has been able to prove its case against the accused for the aforesaid charge beyond any shadow of reasonable doubt. We have perused the statement of the victim very minutely, examined as PW 1 (name not being disclosed). The learned trial court should have also avoided disclosing the identity of the girl. We have chosen to describe her as ‘the victim’ in the judgment.

5. No doubt, in the evidence of the victim we find certain discrepancies when we read it with the statement of her parents Smt. Meena Gope, examined as PW 2, and Mundia Gope, examined as PW 3, but all those discrepancies crept in the statement of the victim do not shed the basic substratum of the prosecution case. The victim is an illiterate girl hailing from a village and was hardly of the age of 13-14 years on the alleged date of occurrence. She could not speak even ‘Hindi’ and gave her statement in ‘Orria’ language which was interpreted by a clerk of an Advocate. Certain aspects could certainly obliterate from the memory of this child victim. She is otherwise consistent on one vital aspect that she had gone to the house of the accused for plucking chilly and when she was in the courtyard (in common parlance Aangan) of the accused, he caught hold of her by neck and took her inside the room, removed her clothes and then did bad act with her. She narrates as to how she was ravished at the hands of the accused.

6. We do find that there is delay in lodging the FIR by the complainant side but that too would not turn out to be fatal to the prosecution. The parents of the victim would think several times before approaching the police in such type of cases. It is stated by PW Mundia Gope, the father that he called the Panchayat of the village regarding the incident which was not attended by the accused as he absconded and then he went to the police for report. There is nothing unnatural in it. Therefore, delay in lodging the F.I.R does not turn out to be fatal in this case at all.

7. We appreciated the present case, yet from another angle as