2000 Supreme(SC) 652

2000(2) Supreme 611
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
(From Karnataka High Court)
Dr. A.S. Anand, CJI., R.C. Lahoti and S.N. Variava, JJ.
The State of Karnataka -Appellant
versus
Krishnappa -Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 846 of 1996
Decided on 30-3-2000
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appellant : Shantha Kumar V. Mahale, Ms. Mukta Gupta, Sanjay R. Hegde, Advocates.
For the Respondent : Bimal Roy Jad, Advocate.

IMPORTANT POINT
The measure of punishment in a case of rape cannot depend upon the social status of the victim or the accused. It must depend upon the conduct of the accused, the state and age of the sexually assaulted female and the gravity of the criminal act. Crimes of violence upon women need to be severely dealt with.

Headnote:Indian Penal Code, 1860-Section 376(2)(f)-Rape on minor girl-Girl aged about 7/8 years-Offence proved-Trial Court imposing R.I. of 10 years-High Court reducing sentence to 4 years on reasoning that offence committed while in state of intoxication, that accused was unsophisticated and illiterate citizen belonging to weaker section of society and his family members were dependent upon him-Reasons for reduction of sentence neither special nor adequate-Crime of violence upon women need to be severely dealt with-Socio-economic status, religion, race, caste or creed of accused or victim are irrelevant consideration in sentencing policy-Sentence enhanced to 10 years of R.I.

       Held : Sexual violence apart from being a dehumanising act is an unlawful intrusion of the right to privacy and sanctity of a female. It is a serious blow to her supreme honour and offends her self esteem and dignity-it degrades and humiliates the victim and where the victim is a helpless innocent child, it leaves behind a traumatic experience. The Courts are, therefore, expected to deal with cases of sexual crime against women with utmost sensitivity. Such cases need to be dealt with strenly and severely. A socially sensitized judge, in our opinion, is a better statutory armour in cases of crime against women than long clauses of penal provisions, containing complex exceptions and provisos. (Paras 11 and 12)

       In the instant case, the Trial Court gave sufficient and cogent reasons for imposing the sentence of 10 years R.I. for the offence under Section 376 IPC on the respondent. Those reasons have impressed us. The Trial Court was rightly influenced by the fact that the respondent was a married man of 49 years of age having his own children and the victim of his sexual lust was an innocent helpless girl of 7/8 years of age. The medical evidence provided by PW 6, Dr. Shalini Devi exhibits the cruel nature of the act and the extent of pain and suffering which the victim might have undergone on her genitalia as a result of forcible coitus. The Trial Court had, therefore, opined that because of the cruel nature of the act, the accused was not entitled to any leniency. The High Court, however, differed with the reasoning of the Trial Court in the matter of sentence and, as already noticed, the reasons given by the High Court are wholly unsatisfactory and even irrelevant. We are at a loss to understand how the High Court considered that the "discretion had not been properly exercised by the Trial Court". There is no warrant for such an obervation. The High Court justified the reduction of sentence on the ground that the accused-respondent was "unsophisticated and illiterate citizen belonging to a weaker section of the society"; that he was "a chronic addict to drinking" and had committed rape on the girl while in a state of "intoxication" and that his family comprising of "an old mother, wife and children" were dependent upon him. These factors, in our opinion, did not justify recourse to the proviso to Section 376(2) IPC to impose a sentence less than the prescribed minimum. These reasons are neither special nor adequate. The measure of punishment in a case of rape cannot depend upon the social status of the victim or the accused. It must depend upon the conduct of the accused, the state and age of the sexually assaulted female and the gravity of the criminal act. Crimes of violence upon women need to be severely dealt with. Socio-economic status, religion, race, caste or creed of the accused or the victim are irrelevant considerations in sentencing policy. Protection of society and deterring the criminal is the avowed object of law and that is required to be achieved by imposing an appropriate sentence. The sentencing courts are expected to consider all relevant facts and circumstances bearing on the question of sentence and proceed to impose a sentence commensurate with the gravity of the offence. Courts must hear the loud cry for justice by the society in cases of heinous crime of rape on innocent helpless girls of tender years, as in this case, and respond by imposition of proper sentence. Public abhorrence of the crime needs reflection through imposition of appropriate sentence by the court. There are no extenuating or mitigating circumstances available on the record which may justify imposition of any sentence less than the prescribed minimum to the respondent. To show mercy in the case of such a heinous crime would be travesty of justice and the plea for leniency is wholly misplaced. The High Court, in the facts and circumstances of the case, was not justified in interfering with the discretion exercised by the trial Court. (Paras 14 and 15)