[2011] 15 (ADDL.) S.C.R. 927
BALDEV SINGH & ORS.
v.
STATE OF PUNJAB
(Criminal Appeal No. 749 of 2007)
FEBRUARY 22, 2011
[MARKANDEY KAT JU AND GYAN SUDHA MISRA, JJ.]
A
B
Penal Code, 1860 - ss. 376(2)(g), proviso and 342 -
Punishment for rape and wrongful confinement - Prosecutrix
raped and beaten by three accused -
Conviction ulss. c
376(2)(g) and 342 -
Imposition of 10 years rigorous
imprisonment with fine bf Rs. 1,0001- - Upheld by High Cowt
- On appeal, held: Accused have already undergone about
3 ~ years imprisonment each -
Section 376 is a non-
compoundable offence - Hbwever, considering the fact that 0
the incident is 14 years old and that the parties have
themselves entered into a compromise, while upholding
conviction of the accused-appellants, the sentence is reduced
to the period of sentence already undergone in view of th.e
proviso to s. 376(2)(g) which for adequate and special reasons
permits imposition of a lesser sentence - However, fine E
enhanced to Rs. 50,0001- - Sentence/Sentencing.
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal
No. 749 of 2007.
From the Judgment & Order dated 27 .4.2005 of the High . F
Court of Pu'njab and Haryana at Chandigarh in Criminal Appeal ·
No. 242-SB of 1999.
Rakesh nwari, Rajat Sharma and A.P. Mohanty for the
Appellants.
Kuldip Singh for the Respondent.
G
. The following Order of the Court was delivered
927
H
A
928
SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2011] 15 (ADDL.).S.C.R.
ORDER
This appeal has been filed against the impugned
judgment dated 27.04.2005 IN CRLA No. 242 of 1999 of the
High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh.
8
The facts of the case have been set out in the judgment of
the High Court and hence we are not repeating the same here,
except where necessary.
The prosecution case is that on 03.03.1997 at about 6.30
AM. the prosecutrix was coming to her house after answering
C the call of nature. The three appellants caught her and took her
into a house and raped her and beat her. After police
investigation the appellants were charge sheeted, and after a
trial were convicted under Section 376 (2) (g) and Section 342
l.P.C. and sentenced to 10 years R.I. and to pay a fine of Rs.
1,000/- each. The sentence was upheld by the High Court, and
D hence this appeal.
Admittedly the appellants have already undergone, about
3 and = years imprisonment each. The incident is 14 years old.
The appellants and the prosecutrix are married (not to each
E other). The prosecutrix has also two children. An application
and affidavit has been filed before us stating that the parties
want to finish the dispute, have entered into a compromise on
01.09.2007, and that the accused may be acquitted and now
there is no misunderstanding between them.
F
Section 376 is a non compoundable offence, However, the
fact that the incident is an old one, is a circumstance for
invoking the proviso to Section 376 (2) (g) and awarding a
sentence less than 10 years, which is ordinarily the minimum
sentence under that provision, as we think that there are
adequate and special reasons for doing so.
G
On the facts of the case, considering that the incident
happened in the year 1997 and that the partie~ have themselves
entered into a compromise, we uphold the conviction of the
appellant but we reduce the sentence to the period of sentence
H already undergone in view of the provi$o to Section 376 (2) (g)
BALDEV SINGH & ORS. v. STATE OF PUNJAB
929
which for adequate and special reasons permits imposition of A
a lesser sentence. However,. we direct that each of the
appellant will pay a sum of Rupees 50,000/- by way of
enhancement of fine to the victim envisaged under Section 376
of the IPC itself. The fine shall be paid within three months from
today. In the event of failure to pay the enhanced amount of fine
B
it will be recovered as arrears of land revenue and will be given
to the victim.
The appeal is disposed off.
N.J.
Appeal disposed of.
Lex