Sentencing is a matter of judicial discretion; an appellate court will not enhance a sentence unless it is grossly inadequate or disproportionate, provided the trial court's discretion was exercised judiciously within the statutory framework.

ORAL JUDGMENT

(PER : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R. T. VACHHANI)

1. The present appeal has been preferred by the State invoking the provisions of Section 377 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, seeking enhancement of the sentence imposed by the learned Sessions Judge, Veraval in Special POCSO Case No. 28 of 2019, arising out of C.R. No. I-44 of 2015 registered with Talala Police Station for the offence punishable under Sections 376 and 305 of the IPC and sections 3(a), 4, 5(j)(2) and 6 of the POCSO Act and sentencing the respondent for the offence under Section 376 of the IPC and Sections 3(a), 4, 5(j)(2) and 6 of the POCSO Act to undergo 10 years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs.10,000/-, and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo three months simple imprisonment; and for the offence under Section 305 of the IPC, to undergo 10 years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs.10,000/-, and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo three months simple imprisonment.

2. The State has consciously confined the scope of the present appeal only to the issue of enhancement of sentence and has, therefore, refrained from making any submissions on the merits of the conviction recorded by the learned sessions Court. In view of the limited scope of the present appeal, a detailed narration of the entire factual matrix is not warranted. However, for the purpose of appreciating the gravity of the offence and to effectively address the issue involved in the present appeal, the facts in brief, as emerging from the record, are required to be narrated.

3. As per the prosecution case, the respondent–accused was alleged to have developed an illicit physical relationship with the victim, who was found to be less than 16 years of age at the relevant point of time. It is alleged that as a consequence of the said relationship, the victim became pregnant. Subsequently, upon learning that the accused was already married, the victim took the extreme step of committing suicide.

4. Pursuant thereto, investigation was carried out by the Investigating Agency and upon completion of investigation, a charge-sheet came to be filed against the accused before the learned special Court where the accused was put to trial. Upon conclusion of the trial and appreciation of the oral as well as documentary evidence on record, the learned Sessions Judge convicted the accused and imposed the sentence as stated hereinabove.

5. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the inadequacy of the sentence awarded, the State has preferred the present appeal under Section 377 of Cr.P.C., contending that considering the nature of the offence, the age of the victim and the resultant consequences, the punishment imposed by the learned Sessions Court is neither just nor proportionate and therefore deserves enhancement.

6. Further the submissions advanced on behalf of the appellant–State, that the learned Sessions Court ought to have taken into consideration the provisions of Sections 5(j) and 6 of the POCSO Act. It is submitted that the learned Sessions Judge has recorded a categorical finding that the victim was less than 16 years of age and that due to the illicit physical relationship developed by the respondent with the deceased, she became pregnant with a foetus of about five months. It is further submitted that upon learning about the marital status of the accused, the victim committed suicide. However, from the impugned judgment, it transpires that there was no direct or indirect evidence on record to establish the physical rel