1989 Supreme(Raj) 975
RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT AT JAIPUR BENCH
R.S.Verma, J.
Karan Singh - Appellant
Versus
State of Rajasthan - Respondent
S. B. Cri. Appeal No. 208 of 1981.
Decided On : 13-12-1989
Advocates:
For the Appellant:Mr. A. K. Gupta Advocate.
For the Complainant Party:Mr. A. K. Bhargava Advocate Mr. K. N. Shrimal P.P.
Post-occurrence developments, such as compromise and rehabilitation, can be considered in determining the quantum of punishment in criminal cases.
Headnote:
RAPE - SECTION 376 IPC - SENTENCE - REDUCTION - POST-OCCURRENCE DEVELOPMENT - COMPROMISE - COMPENSATION - REHABILITATION OF ACCUSED.
Fact of the Case:
Appellant Karan Singh was convicted of rape under Section 376 IPC and sentenced to five years' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 500. He appealed, arguing that the parties had compromised and he had already undergone more than five months of imprisonment.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the appellant had indeed committed rape and that the conviction was justified. However, it considered the post-occurrence compromise and the appellant's rehabilitation as mitigating factors.
Issues: 1. Whether the sentence should be reduced considering the post-occurrence compromise and the appellant's rehabilitation? 2. Whether compensation should be awarded to the victim.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. Post-occurrence developments can be considered in fixing the quantum of punishment, particularly when the focus is on rehabilitation rather than punitive incarceration. 2. In this case, the appellant had undergone more than four months of imprisonment and had shown remorse. The parties had also compromised. Therefore, reducing the sentence to the period already served was appropriate. 3. Compensation should be awarded to the victim to provide her with some relief.
Final Decision: The appeal was partly allowed. The conviction was upheld, but the sentence was reduced to the period already served. The appellant was also ordered to pay a fine of Rs. 4,000 as compensation to the victim.
JUDGMENT
1. - Appellant Karan Singh has been convicted of the offence under section 376 by learned Sessions Judge Jhalawar in Sessions Case No. l05/78 and has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years and a fine of Rs. 500/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo further sentence of three months rigorous imprisonment. Aggrieved Karan Singh has come in appeal.
2. Briefly stated the case of the prosecution is that on 18.9.78 at about 8 or 9 a.m. Smt. Sunder Bai widow of Bhagwan Nai r/o village Chor Bardi had gone to her field on the outskirts of village Chor Bardi. She was plucking lady finger from her field when all of a suds en accused-appellant Karan Singh came there. The accused-appellant threw Smt Sunder Bai on the ground and pushed her skirt up and by removing his -dhoti' inserted his penis in her vagina against her will. She raised an alarm at which her nephew Mangilal came there. She received injuries on her person as also on her private parts. On arrival of Mangilal the accused-appellant ran away. A report of the incident was lodged on 19.9.78 at 7 p.m with police station Gandhar upon which due investigation was made and the accused was put up for trial.
3. Learned trial court relied upon the testimony of Smt. Sundar Bai as corroborated by the evidence of Mangilal and medical evidence furnished by Dr. Sharad Chand Vijaivargiya and arrived at a firm finding of fact that the accused- appellant had committed rape upon Smt. Sunder Bai. Consequently the accused- appellant was convicted and sentenced as above.
4. In the present appeal learned counsel for the appellant does not challenge the propriety and legality of the conviction of the appellant and very frankly and fairly concedes that charge under section 376 IPC has been fully brought home against the accused-appellant. But he submits that the matter pertains to the year 1978. The accused-appellant was arrested on 21.9.78 and was released on bail on 28.2.79. Thereafter he surrendered before the learned Sessions Judge on 14.1.81 and was released on bail by this Court on 12.5.81. It is submitted that thus the accused ha undergone more than five months imprisonment. He submits that after the present appeal had been filed the parties arrived at a compromise and the deed of composition has been placed on record as would be evident by the order-sheet dated 9.7.84. He submits that this post-occurrence factor should be kept in view and the sentence of the accused-appellant should be reduced to that already undergone by him. It is submitted that the parties belong to the same village and are now living with amity. If the accused- appellant is made to serve out his sentence then the relation between the two would be spoiled and may lead to further acrimony. In support of his contention. he has placed reliance upon Bishnudayal v. The State of Bihar (AIR 1931 SC 39) . Vajir Khan v. The State of Rajasthan (1974 (4) R Cr. C 56) and (3) Govinda & another v. The State of Rajasthan (1979 (4) R.Cr.C. 234) .
5. Learned counsel for the complainant does not oppose the request but submits that some compensation may be awarded to the lady Smt. Sunder Bai. Learned P. P. initially opposed this request but after giving further thought to the matter very frankly concedes that it would not be desirable to send the accused back to jail after such a long period particularly when the matter has been compromised between the parties. He also submits that the lady may be paid adequate compensation.
6. Learned counsel for appellant is agreeable to payment of such compensation as may be awarded by this Court keeping in view the status of the parties.
7. I have given my earnest consideration to the rival contentions. Post- occurrence development can be taken into account in fixing the quantum of punishment particularly when our criminal jurisprudence is reorienting itself towards rehabilitation of the accused rather than to punitive incarceration. This approach is discernible by pro
Click Here to Read the rest of this document
Back
