LexKAMAL KISHORE ETC versus STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
f ). KAMAL KISHORE ETC. A ~ ~- STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH APRIL 25, 2000 [K.T. THOMAS, DORAISWAMYRAJU AND S.N. VA..~AVA, JJ.] B Penal Code, 1860-S. 376 pmviso-Rape-lmposition of sentence less than the minimum prescribed-Justification of-Rape of twelve years old girl-Testimony of victim duly convborated by her mother and aunt- Confirmed by medical evidence-T1ial Court-Disbelieving the testimony of c victim-Acquittal-On appeal, High Court reversing the acquittal and con- victing the accused-Howeve1; High Court holding that since the offence took place ten years ago and accused might have settled in life, imposing impris- • onment for three years i.e. less than minimum prescribed-Validity of-Held, High Court justified in convicting the accused-The reasons for imposing D sentence less than the prescribed minimum must be both 'adequate' and 'special' and not 'adequate' and 'special' disjunctively-Reasons which are general and common in many cases cannot be 'special reasons'-ln the instant case, the reasons mentioned by High Court did not amount to special reasons-Thus, High Court not justified in imposing minimum sentence- r Sentence enhanced to imprisonment for seven years. E ,/' - Constitution of India-Articles 72 and 161-Remission of Sentence- Factors-Consideration of-Long time lag fmm the date of occurrence to conviction, fact that the pmsecutrix got married and is settled well in life with children-Held, may be factors for consideration by executive_ or constitutional· F authorities while granting remission-Penal Code, 1860-S. 376. Words & Phrases : "adequate and special reasons" -Meaning and scope of in the context of S. 376 proviso of the Penal Code, 1860. G Appellant was prosecuted for an offence under S. 376 IPC. The ~~ prosecution case was that 'S' aged about 12-13 years was raped by appel- lant inside his flour mill. The victim's evidence was duly corroborated by the testimony of her mother and aunt and adequately confirmed by the Medical evidence. However, Trial Court holding that the testimony of H 473 A B c D E F 474 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2000] 3 S.C.R. victim was highly improbable, acquitted the accused. On appeal, High Court reversed the order of acquittal and convicted the accused under S. 376 IPC. However, High Court holding that since the offence took place 10 years ago and the accused might have settled in life, imposed a sentence of imprisonment for 3 years i.e. less than the minimum prescribed by exercis- ing discretion under the proviso to S. 376. Hence the present appeals. Dismissing the appeal of accused and allo\ving that of State, the \ Court HELD : 1.1. High Court was justified in convicting the appellant for offences under S. 376 ofl.P.C. [478-G] 1.2. The evidence of the adolescent girl • the victim of rape, as duly corroborated by the testimony- of her mother and aunt, and adequately confirmed by the medic.al evidence, had conclusively established that she was subjected to ravishment by the accused and none else. [ 478-F -G] ~ 2. The expression "adequate and special reasons" provided in the proviso to S. 376 IPC for imposing a sentence less than the prescribed minimum indicates that it is not enough to have special reasons, nor adequate reasons disjunctively. There should be a conjunction of both for enabling the Court to invoke the discretion. Reasons which are general or common in many cases cannot be regarded as special reasons. In the instant case; the reasons advanced by the High Court that the occurrence took place 10 years ago and the accused might have settled in life are not special to the accused in the case or to the situations in the case. Such reasons can ~e noticed in many other cases and hence they cannot be regarded as special reasons. Thus, the sentence awarded to the appellant for the offence under S. 376 IPC enhanced to imprisonment for 7 years. [481-E-F; 482-B] State of Karnataka v. Krishnappa, JT (2000) 3 SC 516, relied on. State of Punjab v. Gurmit Singh and Ors. , [1996] 2 SCC 384, held G inapplicable. 3. The long time lag which elapsed subsequent to the date of offence and the fact that the prosecutrix got married alld is well settled in life and that she is now mother of children ·all these things which happened during the intervening period, may be factors for consideration by the executive or · H constitutional authorities if they have to decide whether remission of the .~ -A. T
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.