ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.

( 1 ) LEAVE granted.

( 2 ) SINCE, the only question involved in this appeal is whether learned Single Judge was right in reducing the sentence, as imposed by the trial court on respondent, detailed reference to the factual aspects is unnecessary.

( 3 ) RESPONDENT faced trial for alleged commission of offences punishable under Sections 376, 323 and 341 of the indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short 'the IPC' ). He was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 10 years, six months and six months respectively for the aforesaid three offences. Additionally, fine was imposed in each case with default stipulations.

( 4 ) RESPONDENT filed an appeal before the High Court questioning correctness of the judgment passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No. 3, bharatpur, in Sessions Case No. 30 of 2002. By the impugned judgment, the High Court directed the sentence to be reduced to a period of five years rigorous imprisonment for the offence relatable to Section 376 IPC and also reduced the sentence of six month's simple imprisonment to one month's simple imprisonment in the case of Section 341 IPC, as according to the High Court, the same was the maximum sentence.

( 5 ) IT is to be noted that before the High Court, the respondent did not question the conviction, but only prayed for reduction of sentence. Though, the High Court noted that under Sub-Section (1) of Section 376 IPC, the minimum sentence is of seven years but that is subject to the provision that the court may for "adequate and special reasons", impose a sentence of imprisonment for a terms of less than seven years. Without indicating any reason, the High Court held that this was a case where the proviso permitting the court to reduce the sentence below the minimum prescribed was applicable.

( 6 ) LEARNED counsel for the appellant-State submitted that the High Court has not even indicated any reason or basis for directing reduction of sentence.

( 7 ) THERE is no appearance on behalf of the respondent in spite of service of notice.

( 8 ) THE crucial question which needs to be decided is the proper sentence and acceptability of views expressed by learned Single Judge. It is to be noted that the sentences prescribed for offences relatable to Section 376 are imprisonment for life or up to a period of 10 years, but should not be less than seven years unless special and adequate reasons are cited by the Court for giving lesser punishment.

( 9 ) 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 the slightest degree of the organ alleged to have been carnally known by the male org