Point of Law: 'Reformative theory of punishment' is to be adopted and for that reason, it is necessary to impose punishment keeping in view the 'doctrine of proportionality'.

Headnote:
Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 452 read with Section 376 - Offence of House-trespass after preparation for hurt, assault or wrongful restraint and Rape – Appeal against conviction - Alleged that complainant’s daughter on date of occurrence of offence, was alone in her house, as complainant as well as his wife being mother of victim had gone to field for doing agricultural activity - In absence of complainant and his wife, being mother of victim, victim was all alone in house and unlucky day, appellant came to house of complainant and when he found that daughter of the complainant being Ms. Chunbadi was all alone, then he committed bad act of rape on account whereof, blood started oozing out from her private part - When complainant along with his wife came back after finishing their agricultural activity then daughter of the complainant (victim), narrated this entire even.
Finding of the court:
Nature of crime, manner in which it was planned and committed, motive for commission of crime, conduct of accused, nature of weapons used and all other attending circumstances are relevant facts which would enter into area of consideration - Further, undue sympathy in sentencing would do more harm to justice dispensations and would undermine the public confidence in the efficacy of law. Needless to point out that it is the duty of every court to award proper sentence having regard to nature of offence and manner of its commission - It appears from perusal of impugned judgment that sentence awarded by learned trial court for life term is very harsh keeping in view the entirety of facts and circumstances of the case and gravity of offence - Criminal jurisprudence in our country which is reformative and corrective and not retributive, this Court considers that no accused person is incapable of being reformed and therefore, all measures should be applied to give them an opportunity of reformation in order to bring them in the social stream - Conviction of appellant is upheld.
Result: Appeal dismissed

JUDGMENT :

Vikas Budhwar, J.

1. This appeal has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 26.3.2013 passed by the court of Special Judge (D.A.A), Banda in Session Trial No.63 of 2012, State Vs. Ram Prakash @ Pappu Yadav arising out of Case Crime no. 73 of 2012, under Sections 452 read with Section 376 IPC, P.S. Bisanda, District Banda, whereby the accused-appellant was convicted under Section 452 IPC and sentenced to five years rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs.5000/-and on a default, sentence of three months further imprisonment and under Section 376 IPC and sentenced to imprisonment for life with fine of Rs.10,000/-and in case of default of payment of fine, to undergo six months further imprisonment for one year. Both the sentences to be run concurrently.

2. Brief facts of the case are that the FIR was registered on 22.02.2012 on the basis of the application moved by the complainant on the same date, in which it has been alleged that the complainant’s daughter, namely, Chunbadi on the date of the occurrence of the offence, i.e. 21.12.2012 was alone in her house, as the complainant as well as his wife being the mother of the victim had gone to the field for doing agricultural activity. In the absence of the complainant and his wife, being the mother of the victim, the victim was all alone in the house and at 4:00 P.M, the unlucky day, being 21.2.2012, one Sri Ram Prakash @ Pappu @ Baura Aheer (Yadav) came to the house of the complainant and when he found that the daughter of the complainant being Ms. Chunbadi was all alone, then he committed bad act of rape on account whereof, the blood started oozing out from her private part. When the complainant along with his wife came back after finishing their agricultural activity at 7:00 P.M, then the daughter of the complainant (victim), narrated this entire event. As at that point of time, it was too late and there was no transportation available, so complainant could not rush to the concerned police station for lodging of complaint. Consequently, in the next morning, i.e. on 22.2.2012, the complainant along with his daughter being Ms. Chunbadi (victim) proceeded to the concerned Police Station for the purposes of lodging of the FIR and in the midway, the complainant met SDM, Baberu and the complainant along with his daughter, and wife gave oral information to the Deputy S.P., Baberu. Thereafter, the complaint was lodged on 22.2.2012 by the informant, whch culminated into registration of the FIR on 22.2.2012 alleging commission of offence by the appellant under Section 452 and 376 IPC, being Case Crime no.73 of 2012.

3. One Sri Likhi Ram Singh was nominated to conduct the investigation, who visited the spot prepared the site-plan and also recorded the statement of prosecutrix and witnesses and after completing investigation, submitted charge sheet against the appellant under Sections 452/376 IPC on 13.3.2012. The matter being triable by the court of Sessions, was committed to the Sessions Court.

4. The learned Trial Court framed charges under Sections 452 and 376 IPC, which was read over to the accused. The accused denied the charges and claimed to be tried.

5. Prosecution examined the following witnesses:

1	Ram Bhawan	P.W.1
2.	Victim	P.W.2
3.	Bittan	P.W.3
4.	Dr. Bhawna Sharma	P.W.4
5.	Dr. P.S. Sagar	P.W.5
6.	Constable Pramod Kumar	PW-6
7.	S.I. Likhi Ram	PW-7

6. Apart from the aforesaid witnesses, prosecution submitted documentary evidence, which was proved by leading evidence:

1.	Written report	Ext. Ka-1
2.	Recovery Memo of Blood Stained Salwar and Sari	Ext. Ka-2
3.	Statement under Section 164 of CrPC	Ext. Ka-3
4.	Medical Report prepared by Doctor of District Woman Hospital, Banda	Ext. Ka-4
5.	Supplement