IMPORTANT POINT
Courts must not only keep in view the rights of criminal but also the rights of victim of crime & the Society at large while considering imposition of appropriate punishment.

ORDER

A.S. Anand J- Leave granted.

On 16.2.1985 the prosecutrix, PW 2, aged between 13-14 years was sexually assaulted by the respondent in broad day light. The prosecutrix was carrying lunch for her father, who was grazing cattle in the fields when the respondent all of a sudden caught hold of her and committed rape on her despite her protestations. The prosecutrix, who was bleeding profusely from her vagina on account of the rape committed by the respondent, reported the incident to her father, PW-3 and to her mother PW-4. The First Information Report was thereafter lodged with the police. The prosecutrix was medically examined and the doctor opined that she had been subjected to rape. The respondent was sent up for trial under Section 376 Indian Penal Code. The Trial Court after appraising the evidence on the record found the respondent guilty of an offence under Section 376 Indian Penal Code vide judgment dated 7th February, 1986 and imposed the sentence often years rigorous imprisonment on him. The respondent filed an appeal in the High Court against his conviction and sentence. While maintaining the conviction of the respondent, the High Court, however reduced the sentence to a period of four years. While reducing the sentence the High Court merely observed:

"However, sentence of 10 years, which is on a higher side, is reduced to 4 years R.I. with this modification the appeal is dismissed.”

2. The State has come in appeal by special leave complaining about the inadequacy of the sentence imposed upon the respondent by the High Court, It is submitted that the High Court was not at all justified in reducing the sentence and that in any event should not have imposed any sentence less than the prescribed minimum under Section 376 (1) IPC (after amendment). Despite service the respondent chose not to appear before us. We, therefore, directed the appointment of all amicus curiae to represent him.

3. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. From the evidence of the prosecutrix and her parents and the medical evidence, it stands established that the respondent committed rape on her and therefore his conviction is well recorded. Prosecution evidence is cogent, reliable and trustworthy. We, therefore, find that the conviction of the respondent as recorded by the Trial Court and upheld by the High Court is well founded.

4. After the amendment, Section 376 (1) provides for a minimum sentence of seven years which may extend to life or for a term which may extend to 10 years besides fine for the offence of rape. The provision Sub-Section (1) lays that the court may for adequate and special reasons to be recorded in the judgment, impose a sentence of imprisonment for a term of less than seven years.

5. Keeping in view the nature of the offence and the helpless condition in which the prosecutrix a young girl of 13/14 years was placed, the High Court was clearly in error in reducing the sentence imposed upon the respondent and that too without assigning any reasons, much less special and adequate reasons. The High Court appears to have overlooked the mandate of the Legislature as reflected in Section 376 (1) IPC.

6. The learned amicus curiae appearing for the respondent, however, submitted that since the High Court had reduced the sentence to four years vide its judgment dated 23rd September, 1987, the respondent would have completed the sentence of imprisonment about five years ago and he may not, at this stage, be sent back to jail. Learned counsel further submitted that before the Trial Court the respondent had submitted that he was a young man and his parents were dependent upon him while seeking leniency in the matter of sentence. The Trial Court, as already noticed, having regard to the circumstances of the case and the nature of the offence, held that the respondent deserved a deterrent sentence and, accordingly, sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 10 years. Of course, the respondent would have undergone