DINESH @ BUDDHA versus STATE OF RAJASTHAN

Citation: [2006] 2 S.C.R. 793 · Decided: 28-02-2006 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARIJIT PASAYAT, S.H. KAPADIA · Disposal: Dismissed
Cited by 5 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

DINESH @ BUDDHA 
v. 
STATE OF RAJASTHAN 
FEBRUARY 28, 2006 
[ARIJIT PASA YAT AND S.H. KAPADIA, JJ.] 
Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) 
Act, 1989-Section 3(2)(v)-Applicabildy of-Rape of eight year old Scheduled 
Caste (SC) girl-No evidence that rape was committed on the victim since she 
A 
B 
was a member of the SC-Held, s. 3(2)(v) of the Atrocities Act not inapplicable- C 
Hence, life imprisonment earlier awarded by Courts below by applying s.3(2)(v) 
of the Atrocities Act reduced to JO years imprisonment-Crime against 
Women-Penal Code, 1860-Section 376(2)(j). 
Penal Code, 1860: 
Section 228-Enactment of-Object-To prevent social victimization or 
ostracism of the victim of sexual offence-Hence, it would be appropriate that 
in the judgments, be it of Supreme Court, High Court or lower ·court, the 
name of the victim is not indicated. 
D 
Section 376-Rape-ls a crime against basic human rights-It is also E 
violative of the victim's Right to Life contained in Article 21 of the 
Constitution-Courts therefore expected to deal with cases of sexual crime 
against women with utmost sensitivity-Constitution of India, 1950-Article 
21. 
Section 376(2) and proviso-Rape of minor-Normal sentence where F 
•t 
-. 
rape is committed on a child below 12 years of age is not less than I 0 years' 
RI-But in exceptional cases 'for special and adequate reasons" to be 
mentioned in the judgment, Court may impose lesser sentence-Whether there 
exist any "special and adequate r,•asons" would depend upon peculiar facts 
and circumstances of each case-No hard and fast rule can be laid down in G 
that regard-Interpretation of Statutes-Proviso. 
" 
~ 
According to the prosecution, an 8 year old Scheduled Caste girl 
was sexually assaulted by accused-appellant when the victim was coming 
793 
H 
794 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2006] 2 S.C.R. 
A back to her house at mid-night after attending a marriage reception. 
Trial Court found the Appellant guilty under Section 376(2) IPC and 
under Section 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes 
(Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 and directed him to undergo 
imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/-. The State was 
B directed to pay a compensation of Rs.50,000/- to the victim. 
In appeal to this Court, it was submitted that the evidence is not a 
credible and cogent; that there are many inconsistencies in the evidence, 
more particularly, of the victim; that this is not a case where life 
imprisonment could have been awarded and that in any event, there is no 
C material to bring in application of Section 3(2)(v) of the Atrocities Act. 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: I. Sexual violence apart from being a dehumanizing act is 
an unlawful intrusion on the right of privacy and sanctity of a female. 
Rape is not only a crime agaimit the person of a woman, it is a crime 
D against the entire society. It destroys the entire psychology of a woman 
and pushes her into deep emotional crisis. It is a crime against basic 
human rights, and is also violative of the victim's most cherished of the 
Fundamental Rights, namely, tht! Right to Life contained in Article 21 of 
the Constitution of India, 1950. The Courts are, therefore, expected to 
E deal with cases of sexual crime aigainst women with utmost sensitivity. 
(798-C-E] 
Shri Bodhisattwa Gautam v. Miss Subhra Chakraborty, AIR (1996) 
SC 922, referred to. 
2. Section 228-A of IPC makes disclosure of identity of victim of 
F certain offences punishable. Printing or publishing name of any matter 
which may make known the id1!ntity of any person against whom an 
offence under Sections 376, 376-A, 376-8, 376-C or 376-D is alleged or 
found to have been committed can be punished. True it is, the restriction, 
does not relate to printing or puhlication of judgment by High Court or 
G Supreme Court. But keeping in view the social object of preventing social 
victimization or ostracism of th1! victim of a sexual offence for which 
Section 228-A has been enacted, it would be appropriate that in the 
judgments, be it of this Court, High Court or lower Court, the name of 
the victim should not be indicated. (798-F-H] 
H 
State of Karnataka v. Puttaraja. (2003) 8 Supreme 3641 referred to. 
.. 
• 
...... 
) 
DINESH @BUDDHA v.STATE OF RAJASTHAN 
795 
3.1. The measure of punishment in a case of rape cannot depend A 
upon the social status of the victim or the accused. It must depend upon 
the conduct of th
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.