BAVO @ MANUBHAI AMBALAL THAKORE versus STATE OF GUJARAT

Citation: [2012] 1 S.C.R. 822 · Decided: 03-02-2012 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: P. SATHASIVAM · Disposal: Disposed off

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
[2012] 1 S.C.R. 822 
BAVO @ MANUBHAI AMBALAL THAKORE 
v. 
STATE OF GUJARAT 
(Criminal Appeal No. 309 of 2012) 
FEBRUARY 3, 2012 
[P. SATHASIVAM AND J. CHELAMESWAR, JJ.] 
Penal Code 1860 - ss. 376 and 506 (2) - Commission 
of rape by accused aged 18119 years on victim aged about 7 
C years - Conviction of accused for commission of offence u/ 
ss. 376 and 506 (2) - Sentence of life imprisonment with a fine 
of Rs. 20, 0001- in default, to further undergo rigours 
imprisonment for three years imposed - On appeal held: In 
view of the age of victim and accused; and that the incident 
D occurred nearly 10 years ago, sentence of life imprisonment 
modified to RI for 10 years with fine of Rs. 1,000/-. 
Appellant committed rape on a girl aged about 7 
years. At the time of the incident appellant was 18119 
E years. The courts below convicted the appellant-accused 
for the offence punishable under Sections 376 and 506 
(2) of the Penal Code, 1860 and sentenced him to 
undergo imprisonment for life with a fine of Rs.20,000/-, 
in default, to further undergo RI for three years. Therefore, 
the appellant filed the instant appeal questioning the 
F quantum of sentence only. 
Disposing of the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1.1 For the offence of rape on a girl under 12 
years of age, punishment shall not be less than 10 years 
G but which may extend to life and also to fine shows that 
the legislature intended to adopt strictness in awarding 
sentence if the victim is below 12 years of age. No doubt, 
the proviso to Section 376(2) IPC lays down that the Court 
H 
822 
Bil.VO @ MANUBHAI AMBALAL THAKORE v. STATE 823 
OF GUJARAT 
may, for adequate and special reasons to be mentioned 
A 
in the judgment, impose a sentence of imprisonment of 
either description for a term of less than 10 years. The 
courts are obliged to respect the legislative mandate in 
the matter of awarding of sentence in all such cases. In 
the absence of any special and adequate reasons, 
B 
recourse to proviso to Section 376(2) cannot be applied 
in a casual manner. [Para 8] [826-E-G] 
1.2 Considering the fact that the victim, in the instant 
case was aged about 7 years on the date of the incident 
and the accused was in the age of 18/19 years and also C 
of the fact that the incident occurred nearly 10 years ago, 
the award of life imprisonment which is maximum 
prescribed is not warranted and also in view of the 
mandate of Section 376(2)(f) IPC, the ends of justice 
would be met by imposing RI for 10 years. Furthermore, 
D 
the appellant had already served nearly 10 years. [Para 
11] [827-E-F] 
1.3 In view of the fact that the accused hails from a 
poor family and was working as an agricultural labourer 
E 
and is not in a position to pay such a huge amount as 
fine , the fine of Rs. 20,000/- is reduced to Rs. 1,000/-, in 
default, to further undergo RI for one month. The 
conviction imposed on the appellant is upheld. However, 
the sentence of life imprisonment is modified to RI for 10 
F 
years with a fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default, to further 
undergo RI for one month. [Paras 12.and 13] [827-G-H; 
828-A] 
Narayanamma (Kum) vs. State of Kamataka and Ors. 
(1994) 5 SCC 728: 1994 (2) Suppl. SCR 799; Rajendra 
G 
Datta Zarekar vs. State of Goa (2007) 14 SCC 560: 2007 (12) 
SCR 840 - referred to. 
Case Law Reference: 
1994 (2) Suppl. SCR 799 
Referred to 
Para 9 
H 
A 
824 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2012] 1 S.C.R. 
2007 (12) SCR 840 
Referred to 
Para 10 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal 
No.309 of 2012. 
From the Judgment & Order dated 28.8.2009 of the High 
B Court of Judicature of Gujarat at Ahmedabad in Criminal 
Appeal No. 505 of 2004. 
c 
K.S. Bahl, Merusagar Samantaray for the Appellant. 
Hemantika Wahi, Jesal for the Respondent. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
P. SATHASIVAM, J. 1. Leave granted. 
0 
2. This appeal is directed against the final judgment and 
order dated 28.08.2009 passed by the Division Bench of the 
High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad in Criminal Appeal No. 
505 of 2004 whereby the High Court while affirming the 
conviction and sentence awarded by the trial Court dismissed 
the appeal of the appellant herein. 
E 
3. Brief facts: 
(a) According to the Complainant-Ramilaben, on 
02.05.2002 in the morning, when her husband had gone to 
F work, she was in her house along with her three children. At 
that time, her daughter - Smita, aged seven years, was having 
pain in her finger, therefore, she called her distant

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.