Hon'ble Mrs. Ranjana Pandya,J.

1. Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment and order dated 23.04.2012, passed by Sessions Judge, Chitrakoot, in Sessions Trial No. 08 of 2010 (State vs. Ramesh Prasad Yadav), registered as Case Crime No. 1112 of 2009, under Section 376 I.P.C., Police Station Pahadi, District Chitrakoot, whereby the accused was found guilty under Section 376 I.P.C. and was convicted and sentenced to seven years rigorous imprisonment along with fine of Rs. 10,000/- with default stipulation.

2. Filtering out unnecessary details, the prosecution case is that on 11.11.2009, the victim aged about 17 years at 07:00 P.M. was returning home after attending the call of nature. Suddenly his neighbour Ramesh Prasad Yadav dragged her into the fields and raped her. When the victim tried to raise alarm, her mouth was pressed. When shrieks were heard, the informant proceeded to the spot who saw the accused raping the victim. On seeing the informant, the accused fled away. The accused was tried to chased by the informant but could not be apprehended but he was identified in the flash of the torch light, hence the application was lodged.

3. The investigation of the matter was entrusted to S.I. Nand Lal Singh, PW-7. The investigation was ended into a charge sheet.

4. The prosecution has examined as many as seven witnesses. PW-1 is the victim who proved her statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. as Exhibit Ka-1. PW-2 is Chunkai who is the informant. PW-3 is Smt. Munni, mother of the victim and wife of the informant. PW-4 is S.I. Kundan Singh who submitted the charge sheet against the accused. PW-5 is Head Constable Kamta Prasad Pandey who scribed the chik and G.D. which was proved by this witness. PW-6 is Dr. Manju Singh who examined the victim and proved the medical report as Exhibit Ka-11 and Exhibit Ka-12. PW-7 is S.I. Nand Lal Singh who is also the investigating officer.

5. After closure of the prosecution evidence the statement of the accused was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. in which he denied the occurrence and has stated that he had been falsely implicated due to political rivalry. No defence witness was adduced.

6. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, the learned lower court convicted and sentenced the accused as stated in para 1 of the judgment.

7. Feeling aggrieved, the accused has come up in appeal.

8. Heard Sri S.D. Singh Jadaun, learned counsel for the appellant, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State-respondent and perused the lower court record.

9. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that he does not want to argue the appeal on merits but he only wants to advance his arguments on the quantum of sentence. However, he has vehemently argued that the custodial sentence of seven years rigorous imprisonment is too harsh and excessive sentence because at the time of occurrence, the accused appellant Ramesh Prasad Yadav was only about 26 years of age and if he is directed to remain in jail, he will become a hardened criminal. Although at present the accused appellant is continuously in jail from 12.11.2009. Thus, the accused has already undergone in imprisonment for more than six years till date. It has lastly been submitted that the accused appellant be sentenced to imprisonment for the period already undergone by him i.e. 6 years.

10. Learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer made by counsel for the appellant.

11. Not pressing the criminal appeal after the conviction of the accused by the court below is like the confession of the offence by the accused. The Courts generally take lenient view in the matter of awarding sentence to an accused in criminal trial, where he voluntarily confesses his guilt, unless the facts of the case warrants severe sentence.

12. In the case of Sevaka Perumal etc. Vs. State of Tamil Nadu AIR 1991 SC 1463, the Hon'ble Apex Court in the matter of awarding proper sentence to the accused in a criminal trial has cautioned the Courts as und