The age of the prosecutrix and the appellant at the time of the occurrence, and their subsequent marriage and family life, can be considered as 'adequate and special reason' for reducing the minimum sentence as provided under the proviso clause of Section 376(1) of the Indian Penal Code.

Pritam Pal, J.

1. This appeal, by accused-appellant Sunder, is directed against the judgment of conviction dated 19.5.1992 and order of sentence dated 21.5.1992, passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge-III, Rohtak, whereby the appellant was ordered to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment (RI) for 7 years under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code.

2. Without going into the details, suffice it to mention that on 2.9.1990 at about 7.30 p.m., the prosecutrix had gone towards the dung-pits of her village to answer the call of nature. When she was returning after easing herself, appellant-sunder, a co-villager of the prosecutrix, suddenly appeared on her way. He lifted and took her to the fields of Bajra crop. There he broke open the string of her salwar and then committed rape upon her. Prosecutrix also raised hue and cry, whereupon, Jita and Rama were attracted to the spot. Appellant, on seeing them, had run away. On return to her house, prosecutrix told her mother about the said episode and then on the next day, i.e. on 3.9.1990, in the company of her mother, Smt. Dhanpati and uncle, Nand Lal, went to the Police Station and lodged the FIR in the above narration of the facts. She was got medico-legally examined by the Police. Accused was arrested in this case on 9.9.1990. He too was medico-legally examined. After completion of the formal investigation of the case, appellant was challaned for commission of offence punishable under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code.

3. Appellant was tried, convicted and sentenced as indicated in the opening part of this judgment. This is how, feeling aggrieved, he has come up in this appeal.

4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the file carefully.

5. At the out-set of his argument, learned counsel for the appellant did not challenge the order of conviction. Even otherwise, being the first Court of appeal, I have examined each and every aspect of this case including the testimony of the prosecutrix as well as that of the other material witnesses and find no discrepancy or any infirmity in the judgment of conviction passed by the learned trial Court. Hence, the same is hereby maintained.

6. Now adverting to the only point of argument raised with regard to the quantum of sentence passed against the appellant by the learned trial Court. In that behalf, learned counsel for the appellant has vehemently argued that in this case prosecutrix was admittedly below 16 years of age on the date of occurrence. Age of the appellant was also below 21 years at that time. During the pendency of this appeal, prosecutrix and appellant both have got married and now they are leading a happy married life. Counsel for the appellant then also made a reference to a compromise dated 13.3.2005 described as affidavit of Smt. Dhanpati, mother of the prosecutrix, which has already been placed on the file of this case vide order dated 16.3.2005, wherein the parties are shown to have buried their hatch of strained relations being co-villagers. At the fag end of his argument, he also submitted that in fact, it was a consenting case.

7. After putting forward the aforesaid points of argument, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that in such a situation, the sentence of the appellant, who has already undergone an imprisonment of one year and seven months, be reduced to the period, already undergone by him. In order to strengthen his aforesaid point of argument, learned counsel has also relied upon the decision of the Honble Supreme Court in Sukhwinder Singh v. State of Punjab, (2000)9 Supreme Court Cases 204 and Jarnail Singh v. State of Punjab, 1999(1) RCR(Crl.) 465 (SC) : (1998)8 Supreme Court Cases 629 and the latest decision of this Court in Ravinder @ Binder v. State of Haryana, 2005(2) RCR(Crl.) 143 (P&H) : Criminal Appeal No. 273-SB of 1992, decided on 16.2.2005.

8. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State of Haryana could not controvert the aforesa