(Delivered by Hon'ble Pramod Kumar Srivastava, J.)

1.This appeal has been preferred against the judgment of conviction and punishment dated 28.11.2007 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 13, Aligarh in S.T. No. 488 of 2005 (State Vs. Arjun Singh) under Section 323, 376 IPC in case crime no. 148 of 2004, p.s. Gonda, Aligarh. By this judgment accused-appellant had been convicted for charge under section 376 IPC and sentenced to imprisonment for life and fine of Rs. 5000/- (in default of payment additional imprisonment for six months).

2.The prosecution case in brief is that the minor daughter (about 14 year) of the informant was raped by accused Arjun Singh (about 27 years) on 26.11.2004 at about 2.00 p.m., and when the witnesses saw them, the accused fled away. Victim's father lodged a FIR on the basis of which case crime number 148/ 2004 was registered. During investigation the doctor reported in the medico-legal examination that 'no opinion about rape can be given', but after completion of investigation charge-sheet was submitted, on the basis whereof Sessions Trial No. 488/ 2005 was held, and after its conclusion accused was acquitted of the charge of section 323 IPC, but convicted as above for offence u/s 376 IPC. This judgment is under challenge in the present appeal.

3.The learned counsel appearing for the appellant fairly states that he is not challenging the conviction but questioning the quantum of sentence only. According to him, taking note of various factors including the age of the young appellant-accused being about 26-27 years at the time of the incident, his old mother being dependant on him, he is the only bread winner of his house, it is his first guilt and hailing from a poor family, award of life imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 5000/- in default, to further undergo RI for six months is excessive. He pointed out that these points were mentioned in the judgment of the trial Court at the time of hearing on point of quantum of sentence, but were not considered at the time of awarding punishment; and without assigning any reason maximum possible punishment for the said offence were awarded,which should be mitigated in the present case.

4.The learned A.G.A. appearing for the respondent State fairly submitted that the Court is at liberty to impose an appropriate sentence in terms of Section 376 IPC.

5.We have given our anxious consideration to the rival submissions and perused the material available on record.

6.In view of the limited submission made at the bar there is no need to go into the findings regarding conviction under Sections 376 IPC. The only question to be considered is whether the sentence of life imprisonment and a fine of Rs 5,000/- is reasonable or excessive?

7.Section 376 IPC speaks about the punishment for rape. Sub-section (1) provides for punishment of rape. Sub-section (2) is not applicable in present matter. Sub-section (1) reads as under :

"(1) Whoever, except in the cases provided for by sub-section (2), commits rape shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which shall not be less than seven years but which may be for life or for a term which may extend to ten years and shall also be liable to fine unless the women raped is his own wife and is not under twelve years of age, in which cases, he shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years or with fine or with both:

Provided that the court may, for adequate and special reasons to be mentioned in the judgment, impose a sentence of imprisonment for a term of less than seven years."

8.It is clear from the above statutory provision that for the offence of rape on a woman, punishment shall not be less than 7 years but which may extend to life and also to fine shows that the legislature intended to adopt strictness in awarding sentence. No doubt, the proviso to Section 376(2) lays down that the court may, for adequate and special reasons to be ment