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, '..

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

Case Note: Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 364A, 325, 323, 384, 342 and 506Show

Case Note: Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 364A, 325, 323, 384, 342 and 506http://olisindia.in/files/cases/IPC.pdf all r/w Section 120B--Abduction for ransom, etc.--Conviction and sentence--Whether justified? -- Held, yes--Accused persons in daring day light bid kidnapped child right in presence of his mother--And caused grievous hurt to her--Demanded ransom of Rs. 5 lakhs in writing for life of child--Demand note clearly brings out threat to life of child if ransom not paid--Offence under Section 364A clearly made out--No merit in appeal.

While acquitting all the accused persons from the charge of offence under Section Show

While acquitting all the accused persons from the charge of offence under Section 366A and 372 read with Section 511 IPC, we acquit the appellant Nos. 1 and 2 from all charges. Whereas, we hold that the appellant No. 3 is guilty of the offence under Section 363 IPC and accordingly we proceed to convict him accordingly. 59. Having held thus, we have to pass an order of sentence against the said accused-appellant No. 3. The incident is that of the year 1992 and 15 years have gone by, therefore, interest of justice would be sub-served if appellant No. 3 is sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years. 60.Bail bond submitted by Appellant Nos. 1 and 2 stand discharged whereas the bail bond of accused No. 3 stands cancelled and he shall immediately surrender so as to undergo the remaining punishment.  

The social impact of the crime, e.g. where it relates to offences against women, and offences of dacoity, kidnapping,misappropriation of public money, treason and other offences involving moral turpitude or moral delinquency ..

The social impact of the crime, e.g. where it relates to offences against women, and offences of dacoity, kidnapping,misappropriation of public money, treason and other offences involving moral turpitude or moral delinquency which have great impact on social order, and public interest, cannot be lost sight of and per se require exemplary treatment. Any liberal attitude by imposing meager sentences or taking too sympathetic a view merely on account of lapse of time in respect of such offences will be result-wise counter productive in the long run and against societal interest which needs to be cared for and strengthened by string of deterrence inbuilt in the sentencing system. [Para 14] [1046-G-H; 1047-A-B] Dhananjoy Chatterjee v. State of W.B. 1994 (2) SCC 220; Ravji v. State of Rajasthan 1996 (2) SCC 175 and State of M.P. v. Ghanshyam Singh 2003 (8) SCC 13, referred to. 2. In both sub-sections (1) and (2) of s.376 IPC, 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. 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. If the court does not mention such reasons in the judgment there is no scope for awarding a sentence lesser than the prescribed minimum. In the instant case, 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. Considering the legal position, the High Court's order is clearly unsustainable and is accordingly set aside. 

Indian Penal Code, 1860

After giving due consideration to the facts and circumstances of each case, for deciding just and appropriate sentence to be awarded for an offence, the aggravating and mitigating factOTHERS and circumstances in which a crime has been committed ar..

After giving due consideration to the facts and circumstances of each case, for deciding just and appropriate sentence to be awarded for an offence, the aggravating and mitigating factOTHERS and circumstances in which a crime has been committed are to be delicately balanced on the basis of really relevant circumstances in a dispassionate manner by the Court. [Para 8] [888-F-G] 2.3. In the absence of any foolproof formula which may provide any basis for reasonable criteria to correctly assess various circumstances germane to the consideration of gravity of crime, the discretionary judgment in the facts of each case, is the only way in which such judgment may be equitably distinguished. [Para 8] [888-H; 889-A-B] 2.4. The object should be to protect the society and to deter the criminal in achieving the avowed object of law by imposing appropriate sentence. It is expected that the Courts would operate the sentencing system so as to impose such sentence which reflects the conscience of the society and the sentencing process has to be stern where it should be. [Para 9] [889-C] 2.5. Imposition of sentence without considering its effect on the social order in many cases may be in reality a futile exercise. The social impact of the crime, e.g. where it relates to offences against women, dacoity, kidnapping, misappropriation of public money, treason and other offences involving moral turpitude or moral delinquency which have great impact on social order, and public interest, cannot be lost sight of and per se require exemplary treatment. Any liberal attitude by imposing meager sentences or taking too sympathetic view merely on account of lapse of time in respect of such offences will be result-wise counter productive in the long run and against societal interest which needs to be cared for and strengthened by string of deterrence inbuilt in the sentencing system. [Para 10] [889-D-F] 2.6. Court will be failing in its duty if appropriate punishment is not awarded for a crime which has been committed not only against the individual victim but also against the society to which the criminal and victim belong. The punishment to be awarded for a crime must not be irrelevant but it should conform to and be consistent with the atrocity and brutality with which the crime has been perpetrated, the enormity of the crime warranting public abhorrence and it should "respond to the society's cry for justice against the criminal.

Indian Penal Code, 1860

 Undue sympathy to impose inadequate sentence would do more harm to the justice system to undermine the public confidence in the efficacy of law and society could not long endure under such serious threats. It is, therefore, the duty of every..

 Undue sympathy to impose inadequate sentence would do more harm to the justice system to undermine the public confidence in the efficacy of law and society could not long endure under such serious threats. It is, therefore, the duty of every court to award proper sentence having regard to the nature of the offence and the manner in which it was executed or committed etc. [Para 8] [1173-G-H; 1174-A] 2.3. The criminal law adheres in general to the principle of proportionality in prescribing liability according to the culpability of each kind of criminal conduct. It ordinarily allows some significant discretion to the Judge in arriving at a sentence in each case, presumably to permit sentences that reflect more subtle considerations of culpability that are raised by the special facts of each case. Judges in essence affirm that punishment, ought always to fit the crime; yet in practice sentences are determined largely by other considerations. Sometimes it is the correctional needs of the perpetrator that are offered to justify a sentence. Sometimes the desirability of keeping him out of circulation, and sometimes even the tragic results of his crime. Inevitably these considerations cause a departure from just desert as the basis of punishment and create cases of apparent injustice that are serious and widespread. [Para 9] [1174-B-E] 2.4. After giving due consideration to the facts and circumstances of each case, for deciding just and appropriate sentence to be awarded for an offence, the aggravating and mitigating factOTHERS and circumstances in which a crime has been committed are to be delicately balanced on the basis of really relevant circumstances in a dispassionate manner by the Court. [Para 11] [1174-H; 1175-A-B] 2.5. No formula of a foolproof nature is possible that would provide a reasonable criterion in determining a just and appropriate punishment in the infinite variety of circumstances that may affect the gravity of the crime. In the absence of any foolproof formula which may provide any basis for reasonable crieteria to correctly assess various circumstances germane to the consideration of gravity of crime, the discretionary judgment in the facts of each case, is the only way in which such judgment may be equitably distinguished. [Para 11] [1175-C-D] 2.6. Imposition of sentence without considering its effect on the social order in many cases may be in reality a futile exercise. The social impact of the crime, e.g. where it relates to offences against women, dacoity, kidnapping, misappropriation of public money, treason and other offences involving moral turpitude or moral delinquency which have great impact on social order, and public interest, cannot be lost sight of and per se require exemplary treatment. Any liberal attitude by imposing meager sentences or taking too sympathetic view merely on account of lapse of time in respect of such offences will be result-wise counter productive in the long run and against societal interest which needs to be cared for and strengthened by string of deterrence inbuilt in the sentencing system. [Para 13] [1175-G-H; 1176-A-B] 2.7. Justice demands that Courts should impose punishment befitting the crime so that the Courts reflect public abhorrence of the crime. The Court must not only keep in view the rights of the criminal but also the rights of the victim of the crime and the society at large while considering the imposition of appropriate punishment. 

Indian Penal Code, 1860