STATE OF GUJARATversusKANUBHAI @ KETANBHAI RAMANBHAI PARMAR

     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


                                   Page 1 of 9
     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



                                       Page 2 of 9
     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



                               Page 3 of 9
     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


                                  Page 5 of 9
      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


                                       Page 6 of 9
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



                                  Page 7 of 9
      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


                                        Page 8 of 9
      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
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




                                                           Page 9 of 9