Back
Supreme Court Of India
ARIJIT PASAYAT,LOKESHWAR SINGH PANTA,P. SATHASIVAM
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
Versus
SHEIKH SHAHID
Decided On : 04/15/2009
(b) Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Section 376 – Sentence – Imprisonment for life or upto a period of 10 years prescribed – Undue sympathy to impose inadequate sentence would do more harm to the justice system to undermine the public confidence in the efficacy of law – Punishment should be proportionate to the gravity of offence – Aggravating and mitigating factors and circumstances should be balanced – Social impact of the crime is an important factor – Reasons for reducing sentence should be adequate and special – Instantly, reasons recorded by High Court neither adequate nor special – Reduction of sentence not sustainable. (Para 9, 10, 12, 14, 18, 19, 20)
(1987) 2 SCR 710; AIR 1991 SC 1463; (1994) 4 SCC 353; (1994) 2 SCC 220; (1996) 2 SCC 175; (2003) 8 SCC 13 – Relied upon
402 US 183: 28 L. D. 2d 711 – Referred
Facts of the case:
This case challenges the order of High Court reducing the sentence awarded by the trial court only on the ground that the accused person comes from rural area.
Finding of the Court:
Impugned judgment is not sustainable.
Result:
Appeals allowed partly.
ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.
( 1 ) SINCE the only question involved in this appeal is whether learned single Judge was right in reducing the sentence as imposed on the respondent, detailed reference to the factual aspects is unnecessary.
( 2 ) THE respondent faced trial for alleged commission of offence punishable under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short the 'ipc' ). The respondent-accused Sheikh Shahid was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of seven years with a fine of Rs. 1,000/-with default stipulation. The conviction was recorded by learned Additional sessions Judge, Sihore, Jabalpur, who imposed the aforesaid sentences. The respondents-accused preferred an appeal (Crl. Appeal No. 299/2003) in the High Court of Madhya Pradesh. By the impugned judgment, the High court directed the sentence to be reduced to the period already undergone. It noted that the learned counsel for the accused person who was the appellant before the High Court did not challenge the finding of conviction but only prayed for reduction in sentence. The High Court noticed that respondent-accused Sheikh Shahid had undergone sentence of imprisonment for a period of about six months. The only ground recorded for reducing the sentence was that the accused person comes from rural areas. That appeared to be a just and proper ground to the learned Single judge to reduce the sentence to the period already undergone.
( 3 ) THERE is no appearance for the respondent in spite of service of notice.
( 4 ) WHILE dealing with the offence of rape which was established, the direction for reduction of sentence should not have been given on the specious reasoning that the respondent-accused belonged to the rural areas.
( 5 ) THE crucial question which needs to be decided is the proper sentence and whether merely because of lapse of time or that the accused belonged to rural areas, the accused is to be waived from undergoing it. It is to be noted that the sentences prescribed for offences relatable to Section 376 are imprisonment for life or upto a period of 10 years.
( 6 ) THE offence of rape occurs in Chapter XVI of IPC. It is an offence affecting the human body. In that Chapter, there is a separate heading for 'sexual offence', which encompasses Sections 375, 376, 376-A, 376-B, 376-C, and 376-D. 'rape' is defined in Section 375. Sections 375 and 376 have been substantially changed by Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, 1983, and several new sections were introduced by the new Act, i. e. 376-A, 376-B, 376-C and 376-D. The fact that sweeping changes were introduced reflects the legislative intent to curb with iron hand, the offence of rape which affects the dignity of a woman. The offence of rape in its simplest term is 'the ravishment of a woman, without her consent, by force, fear or fraud', or as 'the carnal knowledge of a woman by force against her will'. 'rape' or 'raptus' is when a man hath carnal knowledge of a woman by force and against her will (Co. Litt. 123-b); or as expressed more fully,' rape is the carnal knowledge of any woman, above the age of particular years, against her will; or of a woman child, under that age, with or against her will' (Hale PC 628 ). The essential words in an indictment for rape are rapuit and carnaliter cognovit; but carnaliter cognovit, nor any other circumlocution without the word rapuit, are not sufficient in a legal sense to express rape; 1 Hon. 6, 1a, 9 Edw. 4, 26 a (Hale PC 628 ). In the crime of rape, 'carnal knowledge' means the penetration to any the slightest degree of the organ alleged to have been carnally known by the male organ of generation (Stephen's "criminal Law" 9th Ed. p. 262 ). In 'encyclopoedia of crime and Justice' (Volume 4, page 1356) it is
stated ". . . . . . even slight penetration is sufficient and emission is unnecessary". In Halsbury's statutes of England and Wales (Fourth Edition) Volume 12, it is stated that even the slightest degree of penetration is sufficient to prove sexual i
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
