R/CR.A/1336/2014 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/01/2026 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 o>ence 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 Ane of Rs. 5,000/-, and p. 1 R/CR.A/1336/2014 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/01/2026 in default of payment of the Ane, 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 Ane amount, out of the total Ane of Rs. 5,000/-, an amount of Rs. 3,000/- shall be paid to the victim girl as compensation. 2. The State has consciously conAned 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 o>ence and to e>ectively 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 Ave year old girl. On 14-9-2012 in the evening around 4 o’clock, while the complainant Ranjitbhai Bhagabhai Parmar was going towards his Aeld in the direction of Rampura Lat, he heard the sound of a child crying coming from the side of a Aeld. 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 Aled against the accused before the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Kathlal, which was registered as Criminal Case No. 3866/2012. Since the allegation p. 2 R/CR.A/1336/2014 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/01/2026 against the accused was of committing rape, and the power to conduct trial for such an o>ence 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 dissatisAed 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 o>ence, the tender age of the victim Ave 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 o>ence 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 p. 3 R/CR.A/1336/2014 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/01/2026 learned advocate appointed as legal aid counsel, and the learned Public Prosecutor, exercised discretion in imposing seven years rigorous imprisonment and Ane of Rs. 5,000/-, taking into account that this is the accused’s Arst o>ence, 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 conAned 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 Ave 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 o>ences. Page 4 of 9 R/CR.A/1336/2014 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/01/2026 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 Ane. 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 Ane”, the words “shall not be less than ten years, but which may extend to imprisonment for life, and shall also be liable to Ane” shall be substituted; 9. It is pertinent to note that the o>ence 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 e>ect from 03/02/2013, is not applicable to the present case, as the amendment is prospective in operation for sentencing purposes in respect of o>ences 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 e>ect 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 p. 5 R/CR.A/1336/2014 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/01/2026 which may extend to imprisonment for life, and shall also be liable to Ane. The learned Additional Sessions Judge has imposed rigorous imprisonment for seven years the statutory minimum under the applicable law along with a Ane, after duly considering the relevant mitigating factors such as the accused being a Arst o>ender 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 o>ences only the maximum punishment is prescribed and for some o>ences 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 o>ence in order to determine the commensurate punishment for the o>ender. The seriousness of an o>ence 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 di>erent rationales – most prominent amongst which would p. 6 R/CR.A/1336/2014 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/01/2026 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 o>ence. 27.4. One of the factors relevant for judging seriousness of the o>ence is the consequences resulting from it. 27.5. Unintended consequences/harm may still be properly attributed to the o>ender 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 su>ers 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 p. 7 R/CR.A/1336/2014 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/01/2026 must keep in mind the gravity of the crime, motive for the crime, nature of the o>ence 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 a>ord 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 conAdence in the judicial system. Imposing inadequate sentences will do more harm to the justice system and may lead to a state p. 8 R/CR.A/1336/2014 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/01/2026 where the victim loses conAdence 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 p. 9 Original copy of this order has been signed by the Hon'ble Judges. Digitally signed by: KAUSHAL MAHESHBHAI RATHOD(HCD0078), ENGLISH STENOGRAPHER GRADE TWO CLASS TWO, at High Court of Gujarat on 23/01/2026 17:23:44