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

2012 Supreme(SC) 632

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
H.L. DATTU & CHANDRAMAULI KR. PRASAD, JJ.
PUSHPANJALI SAHU - Appellant
VERSUS
STATE OF ORISSA & ANR. - Respondents
Criminal Appeal No. 1439 of 2012 (@Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No.4235 of 2011)
Decided on : 18-09-2012.

IMPORTANT POINT
Rape cases must be dealt with very sternly and severely.

Headnote:(a) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Section 376 - Minimum sentence prescribed - Can be reduced in exceptional cases giving reasons - Sympathy has no place in such cases as rape - Impugned order reducing sentence to period undergone not sustainable. (Para 12)

        (2008) 16 SCC 758; (2003) 8 SCC 13; (2005) 5 SCC 413; (2009) 12 SCC 715; (2005) 2 SCC 710 - Relied upon

        (b) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Section 376 - Offence of rape is an crime against basic human rights - It violates Article 21 of the Constitution - Courts must deal with crimes of rape very sternly and severely. (Para 13)

        (2004) 8 SCC 153; (1996) 1 SCC 490 - Relied upon

       Facts of the case:

        This appeal by the prosecutrix-complainant is directed against the order of the High Court altering the sentence imposed by the Sessions Court in a rape case to the period undergone.

       Finding of the Court:

        Impugned judgment cannot be sustained.

       Result : Appeal allowed.

       

ORDER

1. Leave granted.

2. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order passed by the High Court of Judicature of Orissa at Cuttack in Criminal Revision No.676 of 1999, dated 28.09.2010. By the impugned judgment and order, the High Court, while confirming the order passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Keonjhar, Orissa in Criminal Appeal No.59 of 1995, has modified the sentence awarded to the accused to the period already undergone by him. It is this portion of the order which is taken exception to by the complainant in this appeal. The only issue that arises for our consideration and decision in this appeal is: whether the High Court was justified in altering/modifying the quantum of sentence awarded by the learned Trial Judge and confirmed by the Sessions Court.

3. The complainant was employed as a Matron in a Government Women's College Hostel. The accused was a chowkidar/night watchman in that hostel. The offence that was alleged against the appellant was that he committed an offence of rape under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code on the complainant. The prosecution had led its evidence. The Trial Court, after analysing the evidence on record, concluded that the prosecution has proved its case and accordingly, convicted the accused and awarded the sentence directing the accused to undergo imprisonment for a period of 7 years.

4. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order passed by the Trial Court, the accused had filed an appeal before the learned Sessions Judge, Keonjhar, Orissa. The appellate court, after considering the entire evidence on record has confirmed the order passed by the Trial Court.

5. The accused, being aggrieved by the aforesaid two orders, had filed a Revision Petition before the High Court. The High Court once again has considered the entire issue in detail and thereafter has come to the conclusion that the Trial Court was justified in coming to the conclusion that the accused has committed the offence of rape against the matron of the hostel. However, taking a lenient view of the matter, has reduced the sentence awarded by the Trial Court from 7 years to the period already undergone by the accused i.e. about a year.

6. We had issued notice against the accused confining to the issue regarding the sentence. The accused could not be served through the regular process. Therefore, we had issued non-bailable warrants against the accused to secure his presence. The police authorities have secured the presence of the accused and he is present before us today.

7. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant, the State and also for the accused person and have also looked into the provisions of Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The said provision reads as under :

“376. Punishment for rape.—

(1) Whoever, except in the cases provided for by sub-section (2), commits rape shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which shall not be less than seven years but which may be for life or for a term which may extend to ten years and shall also be liable to fine unless the woman raped is his own wife and is not under twelve years of age, in which cases, he shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years or with fine or with both: Provided that the court may, for adequate and special reasons to be mentioned in the judgment, impose a sentence of imprisonment for a term of less than seven years.

(2) Whoever: -

(a) Being a police officer commits rape-

(i) Within the limits of the police station to which he is appointed; or

(ii) In the premises of any station house whether or not situated in the police station to which he is appointed; or

(iii) On a woman is his custody or in the custody of a police officer subordinate to him; or

(b) Being a public servant, takes advantage of his official position and commits rape on a woman in his custody as such public servant or in the custody of a public servant subordinate to him; or

(c)
























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