SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1996 Supreme(SC) 603

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
M.M.Punchhi : Sujata V.Manohar
Jarnail Singh
Versus
State Of Punjab
Case No. : .
Date of Decision : 3/18/96

The court considered the circumstances, including the young age of the appellant and the willingness of the prosecutrix, in reaching the decision to reduce the appellant's sentence and add a fine.

Headnote:

SENTENCE - LEAVE granted on the limited question of the mode of sentence - The court reduced the appellant's sentence of imprisonment to the period already undergone under both counts, added a fine, and directed the court of Session to oversee compliance.

Fact of the Case:

The appellant and the prosecutrix, both in their youth, committed an act which is a crime under the Indian Penal Code. The prosecutrix was found to be below 16 years of age and the appellant was found to be 17 years of age.

Finding of the Court:

The court reduced the appellant's sentence of imprisonment to the period already undergone, added a fine, and directed the court of Session to oversee compliance.

Issues: The main issue was the mode of sentence for the appellant, considering the circumstances of the case.

Ratio Decidendi: The court considered the young age of the appellant, the fact that it was a one-time act, and the willingness of the prosecutrix in reaching the decision to reduce the appellant's sentence and add a fine.

Final Decision: The appellant's sentence of imprisonment was reduced to the period already undergone, a fine was added, and the court of Session was directed to oversee compliance.

1) LEAVE granted on the limited question of the mode of sentence.

(2) THE finding recorded by the courts below is that offence under Section 376 Indian Penal Code was made out solely on the ground that the prosecutrix was below 16 years of age (found to be around 15 years of age) even though she was a willing party to go with the appellant and have sex with him. The appellant, on the other hand, was found to be of 17 years of age. Evidently, the appellant and the prosecutrix, in the flush of youth, have committed an act which is a crime insofar as the appellant is concerned. Since it was a onetime act and not a continuous course of conduct, we, having regard to this aspect as also the young age of the appellant, reduce his sentence of imprisonment to the period already undergone under both counts, i.e., under S. 376 and 366 Indian Penal Code, but add a fine of Rs 12,000.00 to the count under Section 376 while sustaining the fine of Rs 500.00 imposed under Section 366 together with the default clause. In case there is default in payment of the fine now added, then he shall undergo further imprisonment equivalent to the unexpired portion of his sentence as imposed by the High court. The fine of Rs 12,000.00 if paid or recovered, shall be paid over to Sarabjit Kaur, the prosecutrix, as compensation. The court of Session is to oversee compliance.

(3) THE appeal is, thus, disposed of.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top