SHIV KUMAR SHARMA, J. - (1.) MASTAN @ Mohan, the appellant herein, was put to trial before the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) Beawar, who vide judgment dated March 24, 2003 convicted the appellant under section 376 IPC and sentenced him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for ten years and fine of Rs. 1000/-, in default to further suffer simple imprisonment for six months. Against this judgment that the appellant has preferred the instant appeal.
(2.) I have learned counsel for the appellant as well as learned Public Prosecutor and scanned the material on record. As per Radiology report the age of the prosecutrix on the date of incident was about 16 years, whereas the appellant was of 19 years of age. It appears from the record that the FIR was lodged after the delay of six days. As per Medical Examination Report of prosecutrix (Ex.P-12) no injury was found on her genitals. It was stated in the report that the prosecutrix was found habitual of intercourse. No opinion in regard to rape was given, however Vaginal Swab was collected and sent for examination but as per FSL report semen was not detected in Vaginal Swab.
(3.) IT is contended by learned counsel that the appellant was arrested on December 11, 2001 and he has been in custody continuously for a period of more than 5 years, therefore, in the facts and circumstances of the case the imprisonment awarded to appellant may be reduced. Reliance is placed on Raj Kumar v. State of Bihar, 2007(5) RCR(Criminal) 41 : (2006)9 SCC 589 and Ravinder v. State of M.P., (2006)9 SCC 590.;