The main legal point established in the judgment is that the subsequent marriage of the accused with the victim and their children can be considered for modifying the sentence in cases of offenses under Section 376 of IPC.

The revision petitioner was convicted by the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Gudiyatham, Vellore District in S.C.No.8 of 1999 for an offence under Section 376 of IPC and sentenced to undergo 7 years rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- in default to undergo 3 months rigorous imprisonment and the said conviction and sentence was confirmed by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Vellore, Vellore District. Aggrieved by the said conviction and sentence, the revision petitioner has preferred this revision.

2. The case of the prosecution is that PW1 Muthulakshmi was the victim in this case. When she was alone in her house, the accused who was residing in the opposite house asked her to fetch water. When she took water to him, the accused pulled her inside and bolted the door. The accused gagged her mouth with one hand and undressed her by another hand. Immediately, the petitioner/accused squeezed her breast and forcibly committed rape on her.

3. The parents of PW1, who were in Melmaruvathur, went to Vaniyambadi to continue their work and utilising her loneliness, again the petitioner/ accused ravished her and ultimately, she conceived. Though the accused promised to marry her, the marriage arrangment of the accused with some one else was going in his family. Knowing this PW1 was restless and as she vomitted, the entire episode came to the knowledge of her parents. The father of PW1 who is PW3 Jayaseelan arranged for a panchayat but the accused parents need not accept the said panchayat. Therefore, PW1 gave complaint to the Sub Inspector of Police, Pernampet on 20.11.1996. Ex.P1 is the complaint. Ex.P-11 is the first information report. The matter was investigated and final report was filed. Both the Courts considered the evidence against the accused and convicted him.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner /accused submitted that subsequent to the conviction, the petitioner had married PW1-Muthulakshmi on 22.03.2004 and they also lived together and after the marriage, she had also given birth to a child by name Sandhiya on 26.02.2005. Even, earlier to marriage but after the occurrence, PW1 had given birth to a child by name S.Samundeeswari on 27.05.1997. Now, the petitioner/accused, PW1 and their two children are living together and leading a happy married life. Learned counsel further submitted that pending this revision, a bail petition was also filed by the petitioner and he was ordered to be released on bail after considering the fact that the petitioner married the victim girl, viz., PW1. The extract of the marriage register and the affidavit of PW1 were also filed. PW1 herself appeared in Court on the date of granting bail and even today, she is present before this Court.

5. This Court perused the extract of the marriage register for the marriage of the petitioner/accused and PW1 and also the affidavit filed by PW1 and also by PW3, the father of PW1. It appears that now the petitioner/accused and PW1 are living as husband and wife. Learned counsel for the petitioner/accused submitted that the petitioner had already been in jail for 261 days and also placed reliance on the decisions reported in 1992 (3) Crimes page 82 (Dashrath vs. State of Madhya Pradesh) and 2008 (1) SCC (Cri) 161 (Hasi Mohan Barman and another vs. State of Assam and another) for reducing the sentence on the accused for the period already undergone.

6. Learned Government Advocate (Crl.side) was heard on the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner. He would submit that the offence under Section 376 of IPC is not a compoundable offence but, he has no objection in reducing the sentence for the period already undergone.

7. It is observed in 1992 (3) Crimes page 82 (Dashrath vs. State of Madhya Pradesh) as follows:

"2.Learned counsel appearing for the appellant-accused only makes submission on the question of sentence. It is pointed out that the appellant-accused has already suffere