important points
Conviction can be based on the believable and ‘straightforward’ evidence of the prosecutrix. Offences against women require exemplary treatment.
Recording of ‘adequate and special reasons’ is sine qua non for imposing sentence less than the minimum required by law.

JUDGMENT

C.K. THAKKER, J.—

1.Leave granted.

2.The present appeal reminds us observations of Hon’ble Mr. Justice S. Ratnavel Pandian in Madan Gopal Kakkad v. Naval Dubey & Anr.1, (1992) 3 SCC 204 that “offenders of sexual assault who are menace to the civilized society should be mercilessly and inexorably punished in the severest terms”. Dealing with a case of sexual assault, His Lordship emphasized on Courts of Law their duty to handle offenders of such crimes with a heavy hand. His Lordship concluded:

“We feel that Judges who bear the Sword of Justice should not hesitate to use that sword with the utmost severity, to the full and to the end if the gravity of the offences so demand”.

3.The case on hand, in our considered view, exhibits not only casual, indifferent and perfunctory approach but insensitive attitude adopted by the High Court in awarding sentence on an offender who perpetrated a heinous crime of committing rape on a married woman in broad daylight. The case of the prosecution was that respondent Babulal was residing at village Daulatpur, Tehsil Ikchavaar, District Sehore in Madhya Pradesh. On July 23, 2002, at about 12.00 noon in his own tapri, he criminally intimidated the prosecutrix-PW5, aged about 22 years, a married lady (hereinafter referred to as ‘PW5-X’)and committed rape on her. According to the prosecution, PW5-X was living with her husband in the house of the accused. On the day of the incident, she was washing a drum on tapri when the accused caught her from behind and threw her on the ground. The prosecutrix-PW5 shouted and resisted, but the accused threatened her with knife and committed rape on her. Even thereafter, he threatened to kill her if she reported the incident to anyone else. In the evening, PW5-X told about sexual assault to her husband and her mother-in-law Dallubai, a blind lady. PW8-Ramcharan, who was the employer of PW7-Shiv Narayan-husband of PW5 was also informed who assured that he would talk to the accused and PW5 should not leave the place due to fear. On the next day, i.e. July 24, 2002, when the elder brother of Shiv Narayan arrived, the prosecutrix (PW5-X) and her husband (PW7) went to the police station, Ikchavaar and lodged a complaint. PW5-X was then sent for medical examination, site plan was prepared and statements of witnesses were recorded. PW5 was medically examined. The accused was also sent for medical examination. It was found that he was absolutely competent to commit sexual intercourse. After completion of usual investigation, charge-sheet was submitted for offences punishable under Section 376 read with Section 506, Part II, Indian Penal Code (IPC). The accused denied the charge. In his statement under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, he contended that in order to avoid repayment of loan taken from Ramcharan-PW8, the prosecutrix (PW5-X) had falsely implicated him in the case.

4.The trial Court considered the evidence adduced by the prosecution and particularly sworn testimony of PW5-prosecutrix, PW7-Shiv Narayan-husband of prosecutrix and PW9-Dr. Madhu Sharma, immediate Assistant Surgeon, Public Health Centre, Ikchavaar and held that it was proved beyond reasonable doubt that the accused had committed the offence of rape. So far as PW8-Ramcharan is concerned, he did not support the prosecution and was declared ‘hostile’. The trial Court, however, acquitted the accused of the charge under Section 506, II IPC.

5.On sentence, the trial Court heard the accused who prayed for grant of probation which, in our opinion, was rightly refused by the Court. In the light of mandate in sub-section (1) of Section 376, IPC, the trial Court imposed minimum sentence of seven years’ rigorous imprisonment and to pay fine of Rs. 2,500/- (two thousand five hundred). In default of payment of fine, the accused was ordered to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months more. The amount of fine was ordered to be paid to the prosecutrix X.

6.The aggrieved accused preferred an