Back
2001 Supreme(SC) 197
2001(5) Supreme 160
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Umesh C. Banerjee & Doraiswamy Raju, JJ.
Gopal Chandra Das @ Gopal Chandra & Anr. -Appellants
versus
State of Bihar -Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 1479 of 2001
(Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 1479 of 2000
Decided on 2-2-2001
IMPORTANT POINT
Sentence of 5 years imprisonment in an offence of rape cannot be reduced only on ground that occurrence had taken place in 1983.
Headnote:Indian Penal Code, 1860-Section 376-Two appellants convicted for committing rape on a lady, a resident of refugee colony in the night when her husband was away-Conviction by trial Court upheld in appeal by High Court but sentence reduced from 5 years imprisonment to three years imprisonment on sole ground that occurrence had taken place in 1983-Findings of High Court regarding conviction called for no interference-Notice for enhancement of sentence-High Court should not have reduced sentence merely for reason of lapse of time-When offence charged was a serious one against helpless woman by committing a social evil, question of showing leniency did not arise-Sentence imposed by trial Court restored. (Paras 3 and 4)
ORDER
Leave granted.
In this matter, notice was also issued for enhancement of the sentence, having due regard to the gravity of the offence. The contextual facts depict that the appellants were charged pursuant to the complaint, filed by one Amita Bhatt, a resident of a refugee colony in Champaran District, that she was raped by the appellants in the night when her husand was away.
2. Learned Sessions Judge while dealing with the matter on the basis of the overwhelming materials available on record, convicted the appellants herein under Section 376, IPC and sentenced them to rigorous imprisonment for 5 years. On appeal, however, the learned Single Judge of the High Court, though found no merit in the appeal, but reduced the sentence to three years imprisonment on the ground that the occurrence is of the year 1983 and the same is sufficient to meet the ends of justice. It was in this context that this Court was pleased to entertain the SLP and to issue notice therein, subject to the proposal for enhancement of punishment as noticed above.
3. Upon hearing the learned counsel on either side, we also do record our concurrence of the finding of the High Court that there is no merit in the appeal. As such, the appeal is dismissed.
4. As regards the sentence, we regret to observe that despite having found no merits in the appeal the High Court should have interfere with the quantum by reducing the sentence to three years merely for the reason of lapse of time due to pendency of proceedings at various stages particularly, High Court awaiting disposal of the appeal. In the facts of the matter under consideration when the offence charged is a serious one against a helpless woman by committing a social evil, the question of showing any further leniency to the accused does not and cannot arise. The reduction of sentence thus made by the High Court of the sentence imposed by the Trial Court which itself is found to be on the lenient side, stands set aside and quashed and the sentence imposed by the trial Court stands restored. The authorities will take steps to ensure that the accused undergoes the balance of sentence.
Appeal dismissed.
***************
