Point of Law: Sentence should not be either excessively harsh or ridiculously low. While determining quantum of sentence, court should bear in mind the 'principle of proportionality'. Sentence should be based on facts of a given case. Gravity of offence, manner of commission of crime, age and sex of accused should be taken into account.

JUDGMENT :

Kaushal Jayendra Thaker, J.

1. By way of this appeal, the appellant-Suresh has challenged the Judgment and order dated 23.7.2014 passed by court of Special Judge SC/ST Act, Agra in Sessions Trial No.150 of 2002, State Vs. Suresh arising out of Case Crime No.378 of 2000, under Sections 376, 506 of Indian Penal Code (for short 'IPC') and read with Section 3(2)(v) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes ( Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 ( hereinafter referred to as 'S.C./S.T. Act, 1989'), Police Station Malpura, District Agra, whereby the accused-appellant was convicted under Section 376 IPC and sentenced to life imprisonment with fine of Rs.1,000/-, and in case of default of payment of fine, to undergo further imprisonment for six months; he was further convicted under Section 3(2)(v) of Scheduled Casts and Scheduled Tribes ( Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 and sentenced to imprisonment for life with fine of Rs.1,000/- and in case of default of payment of fine, to undergo further simple imprisonment for six months.

2. Brief facts of the present case are that on 13.12.2000 at about 15.10 p.m., Hakim Singh, son of Madho Singh Jatav, gave a written complainant that on 12.12.2020 when his daughter, namely, prosecutrix who was 16 years of age (who is disabled) had gone for grazing the cattle and when she was in the field of Gutti, accused Suresh son of Mohan Singh Thakur forcefully took her to the field of Gutti and had committed forcible sexual intercourse with her. When the prosecutrix shouted, Navvar and Jayanti son of Bhagwan Singh Jatav and Mukesh son of Faguni Ram Jatav came there and saw the offence being committed but at that time Suresh ran away from there. When the complainant returned back from Agra, his daughter conveyed the entire incident to him namely, her father. The accused was serving with Gutti Thakur. When the complainant went to Gutti Thakur to complain, his son threatened him and, therefore, on the next date, complainant along with his daughter lodged the compliant.

3. The accused-appellant being, prima facie, found to have committed the offence by the Investigating Authority. Investigating Authority laid the charge-sheet before the learned Magistrate.

4. As the offences with which the accused was charged were triable by the court of session. The case was committed to the court of session.

5. The trial was initiated against the accused and the accused was summoned. The accused pleaded not guilty and wanted to be tried. The learned Judge framed the charge and the accused pleaded not guilty

6. The prosecution so as to bring home the charges, framed against the accused, examined the following witnesses:

7. In support of the ocular version of the witnesses, following documents were produced and contents were proved by leading evidence:

8. The prosecution after leading ocular and documentary evidence decided that no further evidence was necessary. The accused thereafter was examined under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. Learned Additional Sessions Judge convicted the accused and sentenced him as herein above mentioned.

9. Heard Shri Virendra Singh, learned counsel for the appellant and Shri N.K. Srivastava, learned AGA appearing on behalf of the State.

10. In view of the latest decision of the Apex Court while hearing an appeal against conviction, the Appell