IMPORTANT POINTS
1. No person who commits or attempts to commit rape shall escape punishment.
2. In a case of attempt to commit rape on a girl of 8 years of age, sentence of five years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 40,000/- will meet the ends of justice.

Headnote:(i) Indian Penal Code, 1860-Section 376/511-Attempt to commit rape-Medical evidence-Statement of prosecutrix, aged 8 years-Accused laid the girl on the seat in Maruti Car and laid himself over her-He pulled down her nicker and opened zip of his pant and took out his male organ-He pressed his male organ on private part of the girl- He discharged so he could not penetrate-Held, accused committed offence of attempt to commit rape-Award of sentence of 5 years rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs. 40,000/- -Rs. 25,000/- to be given to the victim girl. (Bombay Children Act, 1948-Section 57).
       Held : The circumstances show that the accused intended to commit rape on the girl. In the commission of that crime, he laid the girl on the seat in the Maruti Car and then laid himself over her. He pulled down her nicker and also opened the zip of his pant and took out his male organ. He pressed his male organ on the private part of the girl. But since he discharged, he could not penetrate and was unable to complete the offence of rape. However, it is clear that he did attempt to commit rape. (Para 24)
       Further held : Having come to the conclusion that the accused committed an offence under Section 376/511 IPC, the question arises as to what sentence should be imposed upon him. It was submitted before us that the time when the offence was committed the accused had also a daughter of 8 years of age. If that be so perversion of mind of the accused does not appear to have any limit. It was submitted that a long time had elapsed since the offence was committed and that in terms of the judgment of the High Court the accused deposited Rs. 40,000/- out of which Rs. 25,000/- had already been withdrawn by the father of the prosecutrix. It was submitted that if the Court came to the conclusion that the sentence had to be enhanced then amount of fine could be raised. We, however, do not think so. A heinous crime has been committed and the accused must suffer for his consequences. A rapist not only violates the victim personal integrity but leaves indelible marks on the very soul of the helpless female. The girl of 8 years must have undergone an traumatic experience. The question of imposition of sentence after lapse of 11 years of the offence troubled our mind a great deal. Keeping the objects of the amendment to IPC in view and the law as it exists today, the decisions of this Court referred to above on the question of sentence, the message is loud and clear that no person who commits or attempts to commit rape shall escape punishment. (Para 30)
       While imposing sentence of fine and directing payment of whole or certain portion of it to the person aggrieved, the court has also to go into the question of damage caused to the victim and even to her family. As a matter of fact the crime is not only against the victim it is against the whole society as well. Since late, there has been spurt in crimes relating to sexual offences. (Para 31)
       Considering the whole aspect of the matter, we are of the opinion that sentence of five years rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs. 40,000/- will meet the ends of justice. The fine has already been paid, out of that Rs. 25,000/- has been withdrawn by the father of the girl as per direction of the High Court which we uphold. We, therefore, allow the appeal of the State convert the conviction of the accused-respondent from under Section 354 IPC to that under Section 376/511 IPC and sentence him as aforesaid. (Para 32)
       (ii) Indian Penal Code, 1860-Sections 376/511 and 354-Bombay Children Act, 1948-Section 57-Accused convicted u/s 376 IPC and u/s 57 of the Act, for having committed rape on a girl of eight years of age-Award of sentence of 7 years imprisonment-Appeal-High Court while holding the accused guilty of an offence u/s 376/511 convicted him for offence u/s 354 IPC-Conviction recorded held not sustainable-Sessions Judge could not have awarded sentence of 7 years when minimum sentence of 10 years RI provided.
       Held; the High Court after having come to the conclusion that the accused was guilty of an offence under Section 376/511 of the IPC could not have convicted the accused for an offence under Section 354 IPC. Section 511 IPC provides punishment for attempting to commit offences punishable with imprisonment for life or other imprisonment. In this case since the girl was under 12 years of age and the Sessions Judge having found that offence of rape had been committed could not have awarded sentence of 7 years when the law prescribes minimum sentence of rigorous imprisonment for a term not less than 10 years, unless exceptional circumstances existed. However, we find that the State or the complainant did not come up in appeal in the High Court for enhancement of the sentence. (Para 29)
       Both the Sessions Court and the High Court accepted the prosecution evidence as to how and who committed the crime. They, however, differ on the approach as to what offence was committed. While the trial Court holds the accused guilty of an offence under Section 376 IPC, the High Court holds him guilty under Section 354 IPC. Both the Courts did not attach any importance to the discrepancies in the statements of the witnesses which were insignificant and did not damage or impair the case of the prosecution. The courts have considered all the relevant circumstances to come to the conclusion that crime was committed and it was the accused who did so. The High Court, however, does say that there was attempt to commit rape which would be an offence falling under Section 376 read with Section 511 IPC. But by some curious, reasoning, the High Court proceeds to hold the accused guilty for an offence under Section 354 IPC. We think that the High Court is right in its approach that from the medical evidence and the statement of the prosecutrix and attendant circumstances, it cannot be said that there was penetration and there was, therefore, no sexual intercourse though the ingredients of attempt to commit offence of rape are there. (Para 23)
       (iii) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973-Section 222-When a person is charged for an offence he may be convicted of an attempt to commit such offence although attempt is not separately charged. (Para 29)
       (iv) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973-Section 452-Scope and intent of-Order of confiscating Maruti Car in which offence of attempt to rape committed-Car owned by a company of which the accused was a Director-Order of confiscation set aside by High Court. (Para 23)
       (v) RULE OF LAW-A trial by press, electronic media or public agitation is very antithesis of rule of law-It can lead to miscarriage of justice-A judge is to be guided strictly by rules of law.
       Held that a great harm had been caused to the girl by unnecessary publicity and taking out morcha by the public. Even the case had to be transferred from Kohlapur to Satara under the orders of this Court. There is procedure established by law governing the conduct of trial of a person accused of an offence. A trial by press, electronic media or public agitation is very antithesis of rule of law. It can well lead to miscarriage of justice. A judge has to guard himself against any such pressure and he is to be guided strictly by rules of law. If he finds the person guilty of an offence he is then to address himself to the question of sentence to be awarded to him in accordance with the provisions of law. (Para 31)

JUDGMENT

D.P. Wadhwa, J.-Leave granted.

2. Rajendra Jawanmal Gandhi (the accused) was convicted by the Sessions Judge, Satara for offences under Section 376 Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Section 57 of the Bombay Children Act, 1948 for having committed rape on a girl of eight years of age and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 7 years and to pay fine of Rs. 5,000/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months and for offence under Section 57 of the Bombay Children Act, he was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and fine of Rs. 500/- and in default thereof rigorous imprisonment for one month. The substantive sentences were ordered to run concurrently. Maruti Car in which the offence of rape was committed was ordered to be forfeited and confiscated to the State. The accused appealed to the Bombay High Court against his conviction and sentence. A Division Bench of the High Court by judgment dated October 4, 1994 upheld the conviction of the accused under Section 57 of the Bombay Children Act and upset the conviction under Section 376 IPC and instead convicted him for an offence under Section 354 IPC and sentenced him to suffer rigorous imprisonment which he had already undergone (which was 33 days in all) and to pay fine of Rs. 40,000/-. In default of payment of fine, the accused was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months. It was ordered that out of the fine so realised, a sum of Rs. 25,000/- shall be paid to the complainant who was father of the girl. For an offence under Section 57 of the Bombay Children Act, sentence was reduced to imprisonment already undergone and the accused was not required to undergo any separate imprisonment for this offence. The Maruti Car was ordered to be returned to the accused and the order of forfeiture and confiscation was set aside.

3. The matter did not end at that. Nagrik Kirti Samiti, Kolhapur which had been formed was agitated about the acquittal of the accused for an offence under Section 376 IPC. The Convener of the Samiti, Mr. P.D. Hankare represented to the State Government to file an appeal to this Court against the acquittal of the accused under Section 376 IPC. In the meantime, the accused had deposited the fine of Rs. 40,000/- as ordered by the High Court and out of this amount a sum of Rs. 25,000/- had been withdrawn by the father of the girl. Perhaps this was the consideration for the State Government not to file any appeal in the Supreme Court. Since there was no response from the State Government, Mr. P.D. Hankare, Convener of the Nagarik Kirti Samiti, Kolhapur approached this Court. He was granted permission to file special leave petition against the conviction and sentence on the accused by the High Court and as aforementioned, after notice of this appeal was served upon the State of Maharashtra and the accused, both filed separate appeals in this Court. While the State of Maharashtra filed appeal against the conviction and sentence of the accused by the High Court praying for his conviction under Section 376 IPC and for enhancement of his sentence of minimum of 10 years, the accused filed appeal against his very conviction and sentence under Section 354 IPC and 57 of the Bombay Children Act.

4. Since the State itself has filed an appeal praying for conviction of the accused under Section 376 IPC and for his punishment under Section 376(f) as the girl child was less than 12 years of age, leave granted to P.D. Hankare, Convener, Nagrik Kirti Samiti, Kolhapur loses its significance and we direct that the leave be revoked.

5. It may be noticed at the outset that the offence was committed at Kolhapur and the accused was to be tried there in the Court of Session. But because of public outcry, the plea of the accused that he may not get fair trial at Kolhapur was accepted and the case was transferred to the file of Sessions Judge, Satara.

6. Before we consider the rival contentions, we may se

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1997 Supreme(SC) 1218

IMPORTANT POINTS 1. No person who commits or attempts to commit rape shall escape punishment.2. In a case of attempt to commit rape on a girl of 8 years of age, sentence of five years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 40,000/- will meet the ends of justice.

Cases Referred (6)

IMPORTANT POINTS
1. No person who commits or attempts to commit rape shall escape punishment.
2. In a case of attempt to commit rape on a girl of 8 years of age, sentence of five years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 40,000/- will meet the ends of justice.