State of Punjab V/s Rakesh Kumar

Information Type: Judicial Information
Court: Supreme Court
Date of Judgment(s): 2008-08-29
Case No: 1365 of 2008
Case Type: Appeal (Criminal)
Judge Name: Arijit Pasasyat Mukundakam Sharma
Subject: Criminal Law-Kidnapping
Statutes / Acts: Indian Penal Code, 1860
Section: s.376
Bench Strength: Double Bench
Advocate: K.K. Khurana, A.K. Mehta and Kuldip Singh(P) & Nand Lal Sammi, Rakesh Taneja and K.L. Taneja (R)
State of Appellant(s): Punjab
History of Case No: the final Order dated 18.1.2006 of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in Criminal Appeal No. 67-SB of 1994
Equal Citation Details :

AIR2009SC392, 2007(2)ALT(Cri)3, 2009CriLJ396, JT2008(9)SC424, 2009N.C.C.66, 2008(12)SCALE95

Case Note / Description :

Respondent accused was sentenced for the offence of Rape with the victim known to him by the Trial court - on appeal High court reduced the sentence to the period undergone taking the accused age into consideration - Hence the appeal - Held, ' 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' - Sub-sections (1) and (2) of Section 376 minimum sentences are prescribed - Both in cases of Sub-sections (1) and (2) the Court has the discretion to impose a sentence of imprisonment less than the prescribed minimum for `adequate and special reasons'. 18. In order to exercise the discretion of reducing the sentence the statutory requirement is that the Court has to record "adequate and special reasons" in the judgment and not fanciful reasons which would permit the Court to impose a sentence less than the prescribed minimum. The reason has not only to be adequate but also special. What is adequate and special would depend upon several factors and no strait- jacket formula can be indicated. What is applicable to trial Courts regarding recording reasons for a departure from minimum sentence is equally applicable to the High Court. The only reason indicated by the High Court is that the accused belonged to rural areas. The same can by no stretch of imagination be considered either adequate or special. The requirement in law is cumulative - undisputedly, the victim was less than 16 years of age at the time of occurrence. Evidence also shows that the victim and accused were in love and the victim admitted that she had sexual intercourse with the accused. That of course has no relevance because of her age being less than sixteen years - appeal allowed

 
 
SignUp For News Letter

Get news and updates from OLIS group, to your email :
Contact Information
Raj Kumar (Ph.D Research Scholar)
Dr. M. Madhusudhan (Supervisor)
DEPARTMENT OF LIBRARY AND INFORMATION SCIENCE
II Floor, Tutorial Building, University of Delhi , Delhi-110 007
Mobile : +91-011-27666656
Email : info@olisindia.in
All Rights Reserved@ University of Delhi, Website Designed and Developed by Raj Kumar(Ph.D Research Scholar)