Full Judgment
B.J. Shethna, J.
1. Learned Counsel Shri Thakur for the appellant accused submitted that the Trial Court has committed an error in convicting the accused for the offence punishable under Section 376/511 IPC. He submitted that it was a case of consent. He further submitted that at the best the accused could have been convicted for the offence under Section 511 IPC. In alternative, he submitted that sentence of one year R.I. imposed by the Trial Court be reduced to the sentence already undergone. In support of this submission, he has placed reliance on a judgment of this Court reported in 1989 Rajasthan Criminal Cases page 276, Milkha Singh v. State.
2. First submission of Mr. Thakur cannot be accepted for the simple reason that there was evidence of the prosecutrix herself, who has deposed that not only there was an attempt to commit rape, but there was actual rape committed on her by the accused. When her evidence is not shaken in cross-examination then there is no reason for this Court to dis-believe her evidence. The Trial Court has also rightly relied upon her evidence for convicting the accused for the offence under Section 376/511 IPC.
3. Second submission regarding the sentence cannot be accepted for,the simple reason that one year R.I. is not a harsh punishment. Infact, in a case like rape unless and until there are compelling reasons the Court should not award less punishment than what is prescribed Under Section 376 IPC. The sentence is a discretion of the Court. The judgment of this Court cited by the learned Counsel for the appellant in case of Milkha Singh (supra) will have no application to the facts of this case. It was submitted that the accused is now aged 70 years, therefore, a lenient view of the matter may be taken. It may be that the accused is of 70 years today, however, one should not forget the fact that when the offence was committed by him he was 50 years, as the offence was committed almost 18 years from today i.e., on 23.9.1980. It is unfortunate that this appeal of 1981 is heard today in 1998. This circumstance by itself would not help the accused for the purpose of reduction in sentence for such a heinous offence like rape. The Court can take judicial notice of the fact that there is great increase in the commission of offence against woman like rape etc. and its graph is going higher and higher. It is high time that the Court should take strict view of the matter instead of imposing lesser sentence. Therefore, the second submission regarding sentence is also rejected.
4. In view of the above discussion, I do not find any substance or merit in this appeal, accordingly this appeal fails and is hereby dismissed. The accused is on bail. His bail bonds stands cancelled. He shall now surrender within one month from today, failing which non-bailable warrant may be issued against him.
5. The Registrar is directed to circulate the copy of this Judgment to all the subordinate Courts.