IMPORTANT POINT Character, reputation or status of a raped victim is not necessarily a relevant factor for consideration by the court while awarding the sentence to a rapist.

JUDGMENT

ORDER:- It is very unfortunate that a controversy has arisen following the judgment sought to be reviewed in Criminal Appeals Nos. 544-45 of 1986 rendered by this Bench on 31st January, 1989 : (reported in AIR 1989 SC 937), whereby this Court while confirming the conviction of both the respondents/ accused reduced the sentence of imprisonment in respect of each of the respondents from 10 years to 5 years by invoking the proviso to S. 376(2) of the Indian Penal Code observing "the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case coupled with the conduct of the victim girl, in our view, do not call for the minimum sentence as prescribed under S. 376(2)". The State of Haryana has filed the above petitions seeking review of the judgment and to "pass such other or further order(s) as may be necessary in the circumstances of the case".

2. At the outset, we may examine the scope of review of a judgment in a criminal case already pronounced by this Court. Article 137 of the Constitution of India gives the power to the SC to review its judgment but such special power is exercisable in accordance with, and subject to, the rules of this Court made under Art. 145 of the Constitution of India.

Order XL, Rule 1 of the SC Rules provides:

"The Court may review its judgment or order but no application for review will be entertained in a civil proceeding except on the ground mentioned in 0. XLVII, R. 1 of the Code and in a criminal proceeding except on the ground of an error on the face of the record.

3. This Court in a series of decisions has examined the scope of review in criminal cases after the judgment pronounced or order made. Though we are not citing all those decisions, we may refer to a few.

4. In the case of P. N. Eswara lyer v. Registrar, SC of India, (1980) 4 SCC 680 the Constitution Bench of this Court while considering the rule observed thus :-

"The rule (Order XL, Rule 1), on its face affords a wider set of grounds for review for orders in civil proceedings, but limits the ground vis-a-vis criminal proceedings to errors apparent on the face of the record."

5. See also Chandra Kanta v. Sheik Habib (1975) 3 SCR 933 and Sheonandan Paswan v. State of Bihar, (1983) 4 SCC 104.

6. In our considered view, when the present matter is examined in the light of the decisions referred to above, we find no error apparent on the face of the record necessitating review of the judgment and as such these review petitions are liable to be dismissed.

7. We have heard the arguments of the learned senior counsel, Mr. Rajinder Sachar who though initially started his arguments on behalf of the Peoples Union for Civil Liberties ultimately advanced his arguments on behalf of the State in these review petitions on the representation made by Mr. Mahabir Singh, the learned counsel for the State. Mr. R.K.P. Shankar Dass who advanced his arguments on behalf of Mahila Sanyukt Morcha stated that his arguments may also be treated as supplemental to the arguments of Mr. Rajinder Sachar. Mr. Mulla, the learned senior counsel appeared on behalf of the respondents.

8. Although we have found that the Review Petitions are liable to be dismissed on the ground that there is no error apparent on the face of the record, we, however, in view of he elaborate submissions made by the various learned counsel appearing before us, would like to make the following observations.

9. The facts of the case are briefly stated in the Criminals Appeal and, therefore, it is not necessary to restate the same. Suffice to say that during the course of the hearing of the appeals on behalf of the respondents/ accused, it has been urged by the learned defence counsel that the victim Suman Rani was a woman of questionable character and easy virtue with lewd and lascivious behaviour and as such her version is not worthy of acceptance. After considerable debate on the merits of the case, the argument was confined only with regard to the quantum of sentence. After meticulously examining the entire matte