The court can consider compromises and previous judgments to support a reduction in the quantum of sentence for the appellant.

Virender Singh, J.

1. Vide this judgment I shall be disposing of Criminal Appeal No. 273-SB of 1992, Ravinder alias Binder v State of Haryana and Criminal Revision No. 98 of 1993, Sheela Devi v. Ravinder alias Binder and another, as both are arising out of the one and the same judgment dated 3.7.1992 of Additional Sessions Judge, Jind.

2. The appellant was booked in a case FIR No. 132 dated 10.5.1991 under Section 376 IPC registered at Police Station Sadar Jind for allegedly committing rape upon the daughter of the complainant namely Khazani Devi PW-8.

3. I am not disclosing the name of the prosecutrix in the light of the judgment rendered by Honble the Supreme Court in State of Karnataka v. Puttaraja, 2004(1) RCR(Crl) 113 (SC). She will be hereinafter referred to as prosecutrix only.

4. On the date of occurrence, the date of birth of the prosecutrix as emerges from her birth certificate Ex. PN is 26.8.1975. This is an admitted fact. The date of occurrence is 8.5.1991. The exact age of the prosecutrix on the date of occurrence, thus, comes to 15 years 9 months and 12 odd days. The age of the appellant was approximately 21 years. Even in the impugned judgment itself, the learned trial Court indicates the age of the appellant as 21 years. Both were unmarried at that stage.

5. The appellant after suffering conviction has now been sentenced to undergo RI for seven years and to pay a fine of Rs. 250/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo RI for three months. Hence, this appeal.

6. Mr. Mohunta has not joined any issue on merits of the case and instead has confined his arguments with regard to quantum of sentence only.

7. Dwelling upon his arguments, Mr. Mohunta contends that the prosecutrix during the pendency of the appeal has entered into a compromise with the appellant with the intervention of the Village Panchayat and other respectables. A Criminal Misc. Application for placing on records the said compromise has already been allowed by this Court vide order of even date. He then contends that in the compromise which is otherwise in the shape of affidavit of the complainant, (mother of the prosecutrix) it is stated that she and the appellant are living in the same vicinity; there is cordial atmosphere presently prevailing between both the sides and she had no grievance against the appellant as both the sides have developed good relations and for this reason she and her daughter (prosecutrix) do not want to proceed with this case any more and have no objection if the appellant is acquitted. It has been brought to my notice by the learned counsel for the appellant and even by the learned counsel for the complainant that the appellant and the prosecutrix have got married by now and are having minor children as well.

8. Mr. Mohunta makes a statement at the bar with regard to the period of detention already undergone by the appellant by now. He states that during the trial, the appellant remained in custody for 40 days and after conviction for 5 months and 10 days. The total period, thus, comes to six months and a few odd days. This fact is not controverted by the learned counsel for the complainant or even the learned State counsel.

9. Mr. Mohunta in order to strengthen his arguments has relied upon a judgment of Honble Supreme Court rendered in Jarnail Singh v. State of Punjab, 1999(1) RCR(Crl.) 166 (SC) : (1998)8 Supreme Court Cases 629. In the aforesaid case, the appellant was convicted under Section 376 IPC. The prosecutrix in the said case was below 16 years of age. In fact she was around 15 years. The finding of the Court was that she was the willing party to whole of the affair. The appellant was also of the young age. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances, the Honble Supreme Court reduced the sentence of imprisonment to the period already undergone by the appellant. However, the period of detention is not described in the aforesaid judgment.

10. Drawing my attention to the impugned judgment, Mr. Moh