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

2006 Supreme(SC) 300

Y. K. SABHARWAL, P. P. NAOLEKAR
State Of M. P. – Appellant
Versus
Bhagwat – Respondent


ORDER

1. Leave granted.

2. The respondent was convicted for offences under Sections 376(1), 342 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code. For the offence punishable under Section 376(1) IPC, he was sentenced for a period of ten years. Lesser punishments were inflicted for other offences. In appeal against the order of conviction and sentence, the sentence awarded has been reduced to the period already undergone, namely, four years and eight months, insofar as the offence of rape under Section 376(1) IPC is concerned. The only reason given is that the accused is an illiterate labourer from rural area and, therefore, sentence of imprisonment deserves to be reduced to the period already undergone.

3. We are unable to sustain the view of learned Single Judge of the High Court, acceptance whereof means that for a heinous crime like rape, there are different standards for illiterate labourers from rural areas. That cannot be the position in law. Having regard to the severity of the offence, Section 376(1) IPC provides for a minimum sentence of seven years, and adequate and special reasons are required to be recorded in the judgment for imposing lesser punishments. By no stretch of imagination, the



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 telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top