IMPORTANT POINT
Where statutory provision prescribed a minimum period of imprisonment and discretion to further reduce same giving adequate and special reasons, High Court should not have further reduced sentence merely reiterating the factors which had been considered by trial court in imposing reduced sentence of 2 years under section 376 IPC.

ORDER

Leave granted.

2. Feeling aggrieved by the judgment rendered by the Karnataka High Court in criminal appeal No. 14 of 1996 further reducing the sentence imposed on the accused, respondent herein, the State of Karnataka has filed this appeal assailing the said judgment.

3. On first information report lodged by the prosecutrix PW-1, the respondent was tried for the charge of rape punishable under section 376, Indian Penal Code. The trial court on appreciation of the evidence on record, held the accused guilty of the charge of rape and convicted him therefore. Considering the question of appropriate sentence to be imposed, the trial court observed, "therefore, taking into consideration all these aspects, I feel that it is a fit case for sentencing the accused to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and this in my view would meet the ends of justice. The accused is sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years for the offence under section 376 of IPC. The bail bond of the accused stands cancelled."

4. The accused challenged the judgment before the High Court in appeal. The High Court on a fresh assessment of the evidence on record held that the finding of conviction by the learned sessions judge appears to be just and proper and needs no interference.

5. Regarding the sentence imposed by the trial court, the High Court considered the prayer of the counsel appearing for the accused for leniency and held : "Taking into consideration the length of time of 11 years after the incident and the pendency of the case before one forum or the other and the young age of the accused and also the Democleus sword of going to jail was always hanging on his head, ends of justice would be met if the sentence of rigorous imprisonment of two years is reduced and at the same time, the appellant is sentenced with fine which in turn can be paid to the victim as compensation under section 357 Cr.P.C.

In the result, the judgment of conviction for the offence under section 376 IPC passed by the trial court is affirmed. However, the sentence of rigorous imprisonment for two years is modified and the appellant is sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months with a fine of Rs. 5,000/- in default to undergo simple imprisonment for a further period of three months. If the fine amount is deposited, the same shall be paid to PW-1 as compensation under section 357 Cr.P.C.

With the above modification to the sentence, this appeal stands dismissed.

6. Against the sentence imposed by the High Court, the state has filed this appeal.

7. The question that arises for consideration is whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the High Court was, right in reducing the sentence to six months and fine.

8. The prosecution case which was accepted by the courts below was that the prosecutrix, aged 19 years was a polio affected person and was unable to move normally. The accused, who was a relation of the family had free access to the house. He committed the rape when the prosecutrix was alone in the house, her parents having gone out.

9. The imposition of sentence in cases involving offences against women has engaged the attention of this Court from time to time. In the case of State of Karnataka v. Krishnappa reported in [JT 2000 (3) SC 516], a three judge bench of this Court took note of the observations made in [JT 1995(7) SC 90]; State of Andhra Pradesh v. Bodem Sundara Rao which read as follows:

14. In State of A.P. v. Bodem Sundara Rao while dealing with a case of reduction of sentence from 10 years RI to 4 years RI by the High Court in the case of rape of a girl aged between 13 and 14 years, it was observed:

9. In recent years, we have noticed that crime against women are on the rise. These crimes are an affront to the human dignity of the society. Imposition of grossly inadequate sentence and particularly against the mandate of the legislature not only is an injustice to the victim of the crime in particular and the society as a