Narendra Kumar Jain, J. - (1.) Appellant Alanoor S/o Suleman has preferred this appeal challenging his conviction and sentence passed by Additional District and Sessions Judge(Fast Track) No. 1, Jhalawar (hereinafter referred to as 'the trial court') in Sessions Case No. 69/2004 vide judgment and order dated 20th October, 2004, whereby he has been convicted and sentenced under Section 450 IPC to 5 years' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo one year's rigorous imprisonment and under Section 376 IPC to 10 years' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo one year's rigorous imprisonment.
(2.) At the very outset, learned counsel for the appellant contended that he does not want to press the appeal on merits and prays for reduction of sentence of imprisonment of appellant from 10 years' rigorous imprisonment under Section 376 IPC to a minimum sentence of imprisonment of 7 years. He contended that even as per prosecution case, the age of the prosecutrix was in between 16 to 18 years and she was not below 12 years of age, therefore, Clause (f) of sub-Section (2) of Section 376 IPC is not attracted in the present case wherein minimum sentence of 10 years is provided. Therefore, this is a case of sub-Section (1) of Section 376 IPC wherein minimum sentence of 7 years is prescribed. He, therefore, contended that even no reasons are required to be recorded for reducing the sentence of imprisonment from 10 years to 7 years.
(3.) Learned Public Prosecutor admitted the position of law in the present case that provisions of sub-Section (1) of Section 376 IPC are attracted in the present case and not Clause (f) of sub-Section (2) of Section 376 IPC. Although, he has opposed the prayer of learned counsel for the appellant to reduce the sentence of imprisonment of the appellant, but he contended that it is the discretion of this Court to reduce the sentence of imprisonment of the appellant.;