Bheraram Vs. the State of Rajasthan

penal code - sections 376 & 447--rape--sentence--quantum of--sentence of 4 years & fine excessive--reduced to 3 years & fine.;the appellant has already undergone a sentence for more than two years and it would meet the ends of justice if the appellant is sentenced to imprisonment already undergone.;i feel that the sentence of rigorous imprisonment for three years and a fine of rs. 1,000/- one thousand would meet the ends of justice.;appeal partly allowed - section 2(k), 2(1), 7 & 40 & juvenile justice (care and protection of children) rules, 2007, rule 12 & 98 & juvenile justice act, 1986, section 2(h): [altamas kabir & cyriac joseph, jj] determination as to juvenile - appellant was found to have completed the age of 16 years and 13 days on the date of alleged occurrence - appellant was arrested on 30.11.1998 when the 1986 act was in force and under clause (h) of section 2 a juvenile was described to mean a child who had not attained the age of sixteen years or a girl who had not attained the age of eighteen years - it is with the enactment of the juvenile justice act, 2000, that in section 2(k) a juvenile or child was defined to mean a child who had not completed eighteen years of a ge which was given prospective prospect - appellant was about sixteen years of age on the date of commission of the alleged offence and had not completed eighteen years of age when the juvenile justice act, 2000, came into force - juvenile act, of 2000 has been given retrospective effect by rule 12 of juvenile justice rule, 2007 - as such, accused has to be treated as juvenile under the said act. .....on seeing these persons the accused ran away. the matter was reported to the police station, shergarh by one chotha ram. after investigation the accused-appellant was challaned and after trial was convicted and sentenced, as aforesaid.3. the learned counsel for the appellant has argued this appeal before me only on the quantum of sentence. his contention is that looking to the facts and circumstances of the case the sentence is excessive. the appellant has already undergone a sentence for more than two years and it would meet the ends of justice if the appellant is sentenced to imprisonment already undergone. the learned public prosecutor has submitted that the sentence of four years' rigorous imprisonment is not excessive looking to the facts and circumstances of the case i feel that the sentence of rigorous imprisonment for three years and a fine of rs. 1,000/- (one thousand) would meet the ends of justice.4. in the result the appeal is partly allowed, the convictions of the appellant for the offences under sections 447 and 376 ipc, are maintained. the sentence of rigorous imprisonment for two months for the offence under section 447, ipc, is maintained. the sentence for the offence under section 376, ipc, is reduced to that of rigorous imprisonment for three years instead of four years and the sentence of fine of rs. 1,000/- (one thousand) and in default of the payment of fine further rigorous imprisonment for six months is maintained. the appellant shall be entitled to the benefit of the provisions of section 428, cr pc 1973 for set off of the period of his detention during the investigation, inquiry or trial against the period of sentence of imprisonment. the substantive sentences of imprisonment for the offences under sections 447 and 376, ipc, shall run concurrently as ordered by additional sessions judge no. 2, jodhpur.