Pankaj Bhandari, J. - (1.) The appellant has preferred this appeal aggrieved by the judgment and sentence dated 03.05.2012 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Raisinghnagar, Sri Ganganagar in Sessions Case No.15/2011, vide which the appellant has been convicted under Sections 450, 323 and 376 I.P.C.
(2.) The factual matrix of the case are that on 14.03.2011, an FIR was lodged at Police Station, Raisinghnagar alleging therein that the present appellant was found lying upon Sunita, who has been stated in the FIR, to be a special child aged 13 years. The police registered a case under Section 376/511 IPC, but after investigation, filed charge-sheet under Sections 376, 450 and 323 IPC. The court framed charges under the aforesaid Sections against the appellant, who denied the charges, whereupon the prosecution examined PW-1 Shanti, PW-2 Raj Kumar, PW-3 Jagnarayan, PW-4 Tej Kumar Sharma , PW-5 Satpal, PW-6 Iqbal Singh, PW-7 Gurdas Singh, PW-8 Patram, PW-9 Budhram and PW-10 Narendra Kumar. The statement of the accused-appellant was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C., and thereafter, DW-1 Sukhram was examined on behalf of the appellant as defence witness. The court after hearing the parties, vide the impugned order convicted the accused-appellant under Sections 323, 450 and 376 IPC, and passed the sentence of eight years and fine of "rupi foradianRs.10,000/- and on non-payment of fine, further imprisonment of three months for offence under Section 376 IPC; sentence of five years and fine of "rupi foradianRs.2000/- and on non-payment of fine, further imprisonment of one month for offence under Section 450 IPC; and sentence of three months and fine of "rupi foradianRs.200/- and on non-payment of fine, further imprisonment of fifteen days for offence under Section 323 IPC. Aggrieved by which, the present appeal has been preferred.
(3.) The main argument on behalf of the accused-appellant is that the FIR was lodged on the next date of the incident, in which it was mentioned that the accused-appellant tried to commit rape upon the prosecutrix. His contention is that the case falls within the purview of Section 376/511 IPC, and that, the accused is in custody from 15.03.2011. Therefore, leniency should be adopted in the matter.;