Wed. Apr 21st, 2021

Hans Kumar vs State on 12 June, 2017

1 min read

The facts noted in detail in the opening paragraph of impugned
judgment need no reproduction. Suffice to note that as per prosecution
case, the age of prosecutrix (PW-2) was fifteen years and on the strength
of her evidence and that of her father (PW-2), her brother (PW-5),
medical evidence and other evidence on record, appellant stands
convicted and sentenced as noted hereinabove, while discarding
appellant’s plea of false implication.
At the outset, learned counsel for appellant submits that appellant
on the day of incident i.e. 18th February, 2009, was in his early twenties
and was unmarried and that he now has family to support and he is not
involved in any other case. It is further submitted that appellant is a poor
person and he has already remained behind bars for more than eight years
and his conduct in jail has been satisfactory and the minimum sentence
provided for the offence of rape as on the day of the incident, was seven
years, which has been already undergone by him and so, the sentence
awarded to appellant deserves to be reduced to the period already
undergone by him.

Source: Indian Kanoon

Leave a Reply