[Cites 12, Cited by 0]
Gujarat High Court
State Of Gujarat vs Kanubhai @ Ketanbhai Ramanbhai Parmar on 22 January, 2026
Author: Ilesh J. Vora
Bench: Ilesh J. Vora
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1336/2014 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/01/2026
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL APPEAL (FOR ENHANCEMENT) NO. 1336 of
2014
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ILESH J. VORA
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R. T. VACHHANI
=========================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
=========================================
STATE OF GUJARAT
Versus
KANUBHAI @ KETANBHAI RAMANBHAI PARMAR
=========================================
Appearance:
MR ROHAN H RAVAL, APP for the Appellant(s) No. 1
HCLS COMMITTEE(4998) for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 1
MR UMANG H OZA(2440) for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 1
=========================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ILESH J. VORA
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R. T. VACHHANI
Date : 22/01/2026
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
Additional Sessions Judge in Sessions Case no. 29/2013 arising out
of FIR No. 147/12 registered with Kathlal Police Station for the
offence punishable under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code and
sentencing the respondent-accused to undergo rigorous
imprisonment for seven years and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/-, and
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1336/2014 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/01/2026
undefined
in default of payment of the fine, to further undergo simple
imprisonment for 1 year, with a further direction under Section
357(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure that if the accused pays
the fine amount, out of the total fine of Rs. 5,000/-, an amount of
Rs. 3,000/- shall be paid to the victim girl as compensation.
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
Ketanbhai Ramanbhai Parmar was alleged to have committed rape
upon a five year old girl. On 14-9-2012 in the evening around 4
o'clock, while the complainant Ranjitbhai Bhagabhai Parmar was
going towards his field in the direction of Rampura Lat, he heard
the sound of a child crying coming from the side of a field. When he
went in that direction, he saw the girl lying on the ground and the
accused next to her fastening the chain of his pants. The
complainant recognized the accused as a person from their village
Kathana. The victim was the 5 year old daughter of Parulben alias
Parvatiben. 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 Judicial Magistrate First Class, Kathlal, which was
registered as Criminal Case No. 3866/2012. Since the allegation
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1336/2014 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/01/2026
undefined
against the accused was of committing rape, and the power to
conduct trial for such an offence lies only with the Sessions Court,
the case was committed to the Sessions Court under Section 209 of
the Code of Criminal Procedure by committal order of the learned
Magistrate. Upon conclusion of the trial and appreciation of the
oral as well as documentary evidence on record, the learned
Additional Sessions Judge convicted the accused under Section 376
of the Indian Penal Code and imposed the sentence as stated
hereinabove.
4. 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 tender age of the victim five years old
with no understanding of such matters, the heinous act committed
by the accused resulting in blood stained underwear and bleeding
from private parts, and the overall circumstances, the punishment
imposed by the learned Sessions Court is neither just nor
proportionate and therefore deserves enhancement.
5. Further the submissions advanced on behalf of the appellant-
State, that the learned Sessions Court ought to have taken into
consideration the gravity of the offence against a very young girl of
tender age. It is submitted that the learned Additional Sessions
Judge has recorded that the heinous act committed by the accused
against her in such a vulnerable state cannot be taken lightly, it has
outraged the modesty and dignity of a girl, and from a social
perspective imposing such a sentence is just and appropriate.
However, from the impugned judgment, it transpires that the
learned sessions Court, after hearing the submissions of the
accused regarding sentence, the arguments advanced by his
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1336/2014 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/01/2026
undefined
learned advocate appointed as legal aid counsel, and the learned
Public Prosecutor, exercised discretion in imposing seven years
rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs. 5,000/-, taking into account
that this is the accused's first offence, he has no prior criminal
record, he has family responsibilities, and although circumstances
exist that could warrant a higher sentence, seven years was found
just and reasonable.
6. The issue that therefore arises for consideration before this
Court is whether the sentence so imposed can be said to be grossly
inadequate or disproportionate so as to warrant interference by
this Court in exercise of powers under Section 377 of Cr.P.C.
7. At this juncture, it is required to be placed on record that
since the present appeal, as fairly submitted by the learned APP for
the State, is confined only to the issue of enhancement of sentence,
the other aspects of the matter are not required to be dealt with.
However, in order to address the issue as to whether the sentence
awarded by the learned Additional Sessions Judge is appropriate,
adequate, just and proportionate, commensurate with the nature
and gravity of the crime and the manner in which the crime was
committed against a five year old girl, it is necessary to consider
the crux of the conclusions recorded by the learned Sessions Judge
along with provisions contenting punishment under Section 376 of
the Indian Penal Code.
8. At this stage, it would be apposite to refer to the statutory
provisions under which the respondent-accused has been
convicted, in order to examine whether the sentence imposed is
commensurate with the nature and gravity of the offences.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1336/2014 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/01/2026
undefined
I.P.C. Section 376: Punishment for rape. Whoever, except in
the cases provided for in sub-section (2), commits rape, shall be
punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which
shall not be less than seven years but which may be for life or for a
term which may extend to ten years and shall also be liable to fine.
As per the Criminal Amendment Act, 2018, section 4
(amendment of section 376 IPC) is as follows:
4. In section 376 of the Penal Code
(a) in sub-section (1), for the words "shall not be less than seven
years, but which may extend to imprisonment for life, and shall also
be liable to fine", the words "shall not be less than ten years, but
which may extend to imprisonment for life, and shall also be liable
to fine" shall be substituted;
9. It is pertinent to note that the offence in the present case was
committed on 14/09/2012, as borne out from the record including
FIR No. 147/2012 and the prosecution narrative. The Criminal Law
(Amendment) Act, 2013, which, inter alia, raised the minimum
punishment under Section 376(1) IPC from seven years to ten years
and came into force with effect from 03/02/2013, is not applicable
to the present case, as the amendment is prospective in operation
for sentencing purposes in respect of offences committed prior to
its enforcement. Similarly, the Criminal Law (Amendment) Act,
2018, which further enhanced the minimum sentence under
Section 376(1) IPC to ten years with effect from 21/04/2018, has no
application. Consequently, the sentencing framework governing the
respondent-accused remains the unamended provision of Section
376 IPC as it stood prior to 2013, viz., imprisonment of either
description for a term which shall not be less than seven years but
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1336/2014 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/01/2026
undefined
which may extend to imprisonment for life, and shall also be liable
to fine. The learned Additional Sessions Judge has imposed
rigorous imprisonment for seven years the statutory minimum
under the applicable law along with a fine, after duly considering
the relevant mitigating factors such as the accused being a first
offender with no prior criminal record and having family
responsibilities. The discretion has been exercised judiciously
within the statutory limits.
10. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has referred to the case of
Soman vs. State of Kerala, reported in (2013) 11 SCC 382 and
Alister Anthony Pareira v. State of Maharashtra reported in
(2012) 2 SCC 648 and has made observations in Paragraphs 10,
11, 12, 13 and 14 as under :-
"10. Currently, India does not have structured sentencing
guidelines that have been issued either by the legislature or
the judiciary. However, the Courts have framed certain
guidelines in the matter of imposition of sentence. A Judge
has wide discretion in awarding the sentence within the
statutory limits. Since in many offences only the maximum
punishment is prescribed and for some offences the
minimum punishment is prescribed, each Judge exercises
his discretion accordingly. There cannot, therefore, be any
uniformity. However, this Court has repeatedly held that
the Courts will have to take into account certain principles
while exercising their discretion in sentencing, such as
proportionality, deterrence and rehabilitation. In a
proportionality analysis, it is necessary to assess the
seriousness of an offence in order to determine the
commensurate punishment for the offender. The
seriousness of an offence depends, apart from other things,
also upon its harmfulness.
11. This Court in the case of Soman Vs. State of
Kerala [(2013) 11 SCC 382] observed thus :
"27.1. Courts ought to base sentencing decisions on various
different rationales - most prominent amongst which would
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1336/2014 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/01/2026
undefined
be proportionality and deterrence.
27.2. The question of consequences of criminal action can
be relevant from both a proportionality and deterrence
standpoint
27.3. Insofar as proportionality is concerned, the sentence
must be commensurate with the seriousness or gravity of
the offence.
27.4. One of the factors relevant for judging seriousness of
the offence is the consequences resulting from it.
27.5. Unintended consequences/harm may still be properly
attributed to the offender if they were reasonably
foreseeable. In case of illicit and underground manufacture
of liquor, the chances of toxicity are so high that not only its
manufacturer but the distributor and the retail vendor
would know its likely risks to the consumer. Hence, even
though any harm to the consumer might not be directly
intended, some aggravated culpability must attach if the
consumer suffers some grievous hurt or dies as result of
consuming the spurious liquor."
12. The same is the verdict of this Court in Alister
Anthony Pareira Vs. State of Maharashtra [(2012) 2
SCC 648] wherein it is observed thus:
"84. Sentencing is an important task in the
matters of crime. One of the prime objectives
of the criminal law is imposition of
appropriate, adequate, just and
proportionate sentence commensurate with
the nature and gravity of crime and the
manner in which the crime is done. There is
no straitjacket formula for sentencing an
accused on proof of crime. The courts have
evolved certain principles: the twin objective
of the sentencing policy is deterrence and
correction. What sentence would meet the
ends of justice depends on the facts and
circumstances of each case and the court
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1336/2014 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/01/2026
undefined
must keep in mind the gravity of the crime,
motive for the crime, nature of the offence
and all other attendant circumstances."
11. In Bed Raj v. State of Uttar Pradesh reported in 1955 (2)
SCR 583, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has concluded that the
question of sentence is a matter of discretion and it is well settled
that when discretion has been properly exercised along accepted
judicial lines, an appellate court should not interfere to the
detriment of the accused person except for very strong reasons,
which must be disclosed on the face of judgment. It was further
held that in a matter of enhancement, there should not be
interference when the sentence passed imposes substantial
punishment wherein it has been held that in matters relating to
enhancement of sentence, interference is not warranted where the
sentence imposed is just and proper.
12. From the aforementioned observations, it is clear that the
principle governing the imposition of punishment will depend upon
the facts and circumstances of each case. However, the sentence
should be appropriate, adequate, just, proportionate and
commensurate with the nature and gravity of the crime and the
manner in which the crime is committed. The gravity of the crime,
motive for the crime, nature of the crime and all other attending
circumstances have to be borne in mind while imposing the
sentence. It further transpires as observed that the Court cannot
afford to be casual while imposing the sentence, inasmuch as both
the crime and the criminal are equally important in the sentencing
process. The Courts must see that the public does not lose
confidence in the judicial system. Imposing inadequate sentences
will do more harm to the justice system and may lead to a state
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1336/2014 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/01/2026
undefined
where the victim loses confidence in the judicial system and resorts
to private vengeance.
13. In view of the aforesaid discussion, this Court is of the
considered opinion that the sentence imposed by the learned
Sessions Judge cannot be said to be either inadequate or
disproportionate so as to warrant interference in an appeal for
enhancement under Section 377 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
The learned Sessions Judge has exercised discretion judiciously and
within the statutory framework. No compelling or exceptional
circumstances are made out by the State to justify enhancement of
sentence. Accordingly, the present appeal stands dismissed. Record
and Proceedings be sent back to the concerned Sessions Court
forthwith.
(ILESH J. VORA,J)
(R. T. VACHHANI, J)
Kaushal Rathod
