2005 Supreme(SC) 1277

2005(6) Supreme 646
Supreme Court of India
(From Madhya Pradesh High Court)
R.C. Lahoti, CJI, G.P. Mathur & P.K. Balasubramanyan, JJ.
State of M.P. —Appellant
versus
Bala @ Balaram —Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 1277 of 2005
(Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 4977/2005) (Crl.M.P. No. 6542)
Decided on 3-10-2005
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appellant : R.P. Gupta, Sr. Advocate, C.D. Singh, Sanjay Kumar Singh, Gunratan Pandey and Ms. Kiran Suvarna, Advocates.

Important point
Power under proviso to Section 376 IPC for awarding sentence less than the minimum prescribed is to be used sparingly and only in cases where special facts and circumstances justify it.

Headnote:Indian Penal Code, 1860—Sections 363, 366 and 376(2)(g)—Criminal Procedure Code, 1973—Sections 384, 385 and 386—Accused was convicted and sentenced to various terms of imprisonment and sentence of 10 years imprisonment u/s 376(2)(g) IPC by trial Court—High Court in appeal upheld conviction but reduced sentence to the period already undergone which was nearly 9½ months—State appeal—Sentence awarded by High Court was not only grossly inadequate but contrary to express provision of law—No satisfactory reason much less adequate and special reasons were assigned for reducing sentence—Sentence awarded by High Court was illegal—Judgment in appeal was short and cryptic and showed non-application of mind and non-consideration of evidence —Duty of appellate Court while hearing criminal appeal—Impugned judgment was liable to be set aside and matter remitted for High Court for fresh consideration of appeal. (Paras 6, 7 and 9)

       As per P.K. Balasubramanyan, J.

       To view offence of rape once proved, lightly was an affront to society —Discretionary power to award sentence less than the minimum prescribed is not to be used indiscriminately or routinely—Reasons must be set out clearly and cogently and must be relevant to the exercise of discretion—It is duty of Court to impose a proper punishment depending upon degree of criminality.

       Held : The crime here is rape. It is a particularly heinous crime, a crime against society, a crime against human dignity, one that reduces a man to an animal. The penal statute has prescribed a maximum and a minimum punishment for an offence under Section 376 I.P.C. To view such an offence once it is proved, lightly, is itself an affront to society. Though the award of maximum punishment may depend on the circumstances of the case, the award of the minimum punishment, generally, is imperative. The provisos to Section 376(1) and 376(2) I.P.C. give the power to the court to award a sentence lesser than the minimum for adequate and special reasons. The power under the proviso is not to be used indiscriminately or routinely. It is to be used sparingly and only in cases where special facts and circumstances justify a reduction. The reasons must be relevant to the exercise of such discretion vested in the court. The reasons must be set out clearly and cogently. The mere existence of a discretion by itself does not justify its exercise. The long pendency of the criminal trial or the offer of the rapist to marry the victim are not relevant reasons. Nor is the age of the offender by itself an adequate reason. (Para 2)

       The rationale for advocating the award of a punishment commensurate with the gravity of the offence and its impact on society, is to ensure that a civilized society does not revert to the days of ‘an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth’. Not awarding a just punishment might provoke the victim or its relatives to retaliate in kind and that is what exactly is sought to be prevented by the criminal justice system we have adopted. (Para 4)

       It is true that reformation as a theory of punishment is in fashion but under the guise of applying such theory, courts cannot forget their duty to society and to the victim. The Court has to consider the plight of the victim in a case involving rape and the social stigma that may follow the victim to the grave and which in most cases, practically ruins all prospects of a normal life for the victim. Could a Court afford to forget these aspects while imposing a punishment on the aggressor? I think not. The Court has to do justice to the society and to the victim on the one hand and to the offender on the other. The proper balance must be taken to have been stuck by the legislature. Hence, the legislative wisdom reflected by the statute has to be respected by the Court and the permitted departure therefrom made only for compelling and convincing reasons. (Para 8)