The court modified the life imprisonment sentence to 18 years for rape, emphasizing the need to consider mitigating circumstances alongside the severity of the crime.

1. This appeal has been preferred against the judgment of conviction and sentences dated 21.06.2000 passed by the IVth Additional Sessions Judge, Badaun in S.T. No. 406 of 1999 (State Vs. Vijay Kumar) under S.363,376 IPC , p.s Kotwali, Badaun, by which accused Vijay Kumar @ Jai Singh was convicted for the charges under S.376 and S.363 ; and was punished for the charge u/s 376 with imprisonment for life and fine of Rs. 2000/- (in default of payment one years rigorous imprisonment) and for the charge u/s 363 with rigorous imprisonment of five years and fine of Rs. 1,000/- (in default of payment, six months further imprisonment); with direction that both the sentences would run concurrently.

2. The prosecution case in brief is that the accused - appellant had kidnapped Shilpi, 7 year old grand - daughter of the informant Ram Prakash on 04.04.1999 at 09:00 p.m. from the hut of the informant and committed rape with her. After this incident, the victim Shilpi was found by one Siyaram who had taken her to the informant. Then informant who then lodged a first information report on 05.04.1999 at 10:00 a.m. in the police station concerned.

3. During investigation, at the time of the medico - legal examination, the doctor had found that there were marks of injuries, scratches and rape on her body. After conclusion of the investigation, charge - sheet was submitted against accused - appellant Vijay Kumar, on the basis of which, S.T. No. 406/1999 (State Vs. Vijay Kumar) u/s 363 and 376 IPC was registered in police station Kotwali, Badaun. On conclusion of the trial, accused appellant was convicted, punished and sentenced as above by the impugned judgment dated 21.06.2000, against which the present appeal has been preferred by the accused.

4. Sri Deepak Kumar Chatterjee, learned amicus curiae nominated by the Legal Cell of the High Court (Legal Services Aid Authority) has appeared on behalf of the appellant; and Sri Sagir Ahmad, learned AGA had appeared on behalf of the State - respondent. We have heard their arguments and perused the records.

5. After hearing the detailed arguments of both sides and the perusal of the evidence adduced in support of the charges, statement of accused and his defence version reveals that the testimony of prosecution witnesses, especially that of the minor victim, was truthful and believable; and the prosecution had been successful in proving the charges u / ss 363, 376 IPC against the accused - appellant.

6. During arguments, learned amicus curiae had fairly stated that he is not challenging the conviction under S.363, S.376 IPC , but questioning the quantum of sentence only for the charge u/s 376 . According to him, taking note of various factors including the age of the elderly appellant - accused being about 47 years at the time of the incident, he being a petty trader of onions and garlic, his family being dependent on him, he is the only bread winner of his house, it is his first guilt and hailing from a poor family; the punishment of life imprisonment and a fine is excessive. Considering his present age of about 63 years, there is no possibility that he may dare to commit such crime or any crime in future. Considering his old age, his responsibilities towards his family and long period of incarceration, his sentence should be mitigated.

7. The learned A. G. A. appearing for the respondent State fairly submitted that the Court is at liberty to impose any appropriate sentence in terms of S.376 & S.363 IPC .

8. We have given our anxious consideration to the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. Learned counsel for both sides have consented for final disposal of the appeal as such we have proceeded to hear the appeal dispensing with the formality of preparation of paper books.

9. In view of the limited submission, there is no need to go into the findings regarding conviction under S.363 and S.376 IPC . The only question to be considered is whether the sentence of life imp