Based on the provided legal document, here are the key points regarding the case Kamal Kishore etc. vs. State of Himachal Pradesh:

1. Procedural History and Appeals * The case involves Criminal Appeal No. 1322 of 1999 and Criminal Appeal No. 211 of 2000, decided by the Supreme Court of India on 25-4-2000. * The trial was conducted by the Sessions Judge, Una (Himachal Pradesh), who acquitted the accused after disbelieving the victim's version. * A Division Bench of the High Court of Himachal Pradesh reversed the acquittal, convicted the accused under Section 376 IPC, but imposed a sentence of three years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 10,000, rather than the mandatory minimum. * Both the State (seeking sentence enhancement) and the Accused (seeking reversal of conviction) filed appeals, which were heard together by the Supreme Court. (!) (!)

2. Facts of the Offence * The victim, Shishna Devi, was between 12 and 13 years old (born approx. 1978) at the time of the incident. * The accused, Kamal Kishore, committed the rape on 21.5.1989 in his flour mill. * The victim's testimony was corroborated by her mother (PW-3) and aunt (PW-4), and medically confirmed by Dr. J.S. Kanwar, who found injuries (contusions, tears) and detected spermatozoa and semen. (!) (!) (!) (!) * The Sessions Judge had acquitted the accused based on perceived improbabilities regarding the timeline of events, but the High Court and Supreme Court found the evidence conclusive. (!) (!) (!) (!)

3. Legal Issue: Mandatory Minimum Sentence * The offence fell under Section 376(1) IPC (victim aged 12-13), which mandates a minimum sentence of seven years imprisonment ("shall not be less than"). (!) (!) * The High Court had reduced the sentence below the statutory minimum, citing that the offence occurred 10 years prior and the accused "might have settled in life." * The Supreme Court held that Parliament's use of "shall not be less than" is peremptory, leaving no discretion to award a lower sentence unless specific conditions are met. (!) (!)

4. Interpretation of "Adequate and Special Reasons" * The proviso to Section 376 IPC allows a sentence below the minimum only for "adequate and special reasons," which must be conjunctive (both adequate AND special), not disjunctive. * General reasons common to many cases (e.g., time elapsed, accused settling in life, lack of other offences) cannot constitute "special reasons." (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) * The Supreme Court explicitly rejected the High Court's reasoning that the accused might have settled in life as insufficient. (!) (!) (!) * The Supreme Court also rejected the Accused's argument that the victim's subsequent marriage and the accused's social stigma constituted special reasons. (!) (!)

5. Final Holding and Sentence Enhancement * The Supreme Court upheld the conviction as rendered by the High Court. * The sentence was enhanced to the mandatory minimum of seven years rigorous imprisonment. * The Court clarified that factors like the long time lag and the victim's marriage are relevant for executive or constitutional authorities considering remission, but do not justify a lower initial sentence. (!) (!) (!) (!)