though P.W.5 is cited as eyewitness, she has not supported the prosecution case. Therefore, only the evidence of PWs.1 and 4, who are the interested witnesses, was taken into consideration for convicting the revision petitioner. Learned counsel also submitted that the incident had taken place during 2007 and the accused is aged only 20 years at the time of incident. He is not having any criminal antecedents. Learned counsel also drew my attention to the judgment dated 15.09.2012 passed by the Appellate Court, wherein, in paragraph No.12, the Appellate Court observed that P.W.1the complainant and P.W.4-the husband of the complainant have appeared before the Appellate Court voluntarily along with the accused and submitted that they have now compromised with the accused and they do not want to proceed with the case against the accused. However, the Appellate Court observed that since the matter is in the appellate stage, the submission of P.Ws.1 and 4 cannot be accepted. Relying on this observation made by the Appellate Court, the learned counsel for the revision petitioner submitted that since the matter is already settled between the parties, leniency could be shown while sentencing the accused
