LexPUSHPANJALI SAHU versus STATE OF ORISSA & ANR.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2012] 8 S.C.R. 727 PUSHPANJALI SAHU v. STATE OF ORISSA & ANR. (Criminal Appeal Nq. 1439 of 2012) SEPTEMBER 18, 2012 [H.L. DATTU AND CHANDRAMAULI KR. PRASAD, JJ.] A B Penal Code, 1860 - s. 376 - Rape - Conviction and sentence of seven years by trial court - Conviction and sentence confirmed by appellate court - In revision, High C Court confirming the conviction, but reducing the sentence to the period already undergone i.e. one year- On appeal held: Under s. 376 court can award imprisonment for not less than seven years and reduction thereof to be on giving appropriate reasons - Reasons assigned by High Court in reducing the D sentence not convincing- Accused liable to be convicted and sentenced to 7 years imprisonment - Sentence/Sentencing - Reduction of Sentence. State of Madhya Pradesh v. Pappu (2008) 16 SCC 758: 2008 (11)SCR 793; M.P. v. Ghanshyam Singh (2003) 8 SCC E 13: 2003 (3) Suppl. SCR 618; State of M.P. v. Babbu Barkare (2005) 5 sec 413: 2005 (1) Suppl. SCR 381 - relied on. Crime Against Women - Rape - Courts are expected to deal with crime against women with utmost sensitivity - Such F cases need to be dealt with sternly and severely. State of Madhya Pradesh v. Sheikh Shahid (2009) 12 SCC 715: 2009(5) SCR 1038; State of M.P. v. Munna Choubey (2005) 2 SCC 710: 2005 (1) SCR 781; State of G H.P. v. Shree Kant Shekari (2004) 8 SCC 153: 2004 (4) Suppl. SCR 380; Bodhisattwa Gautam v. Subhra Chakraborty (1996) 1 SCC 490: 1995 (6) Suppl. SCR 731 - relied on. 727 H A B c D 728 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2012) 8 S.C.R. Case Law Reference: 2008 (11) SCR 793 Relied on Para 10 2003 (3) Suppl. SCR 618 Relied on Para 10 2005 (1) Suppl. SCR 381 Relied on Para 10 2009 (5) SCR 1038 Relied on Para 11 2005 (1) SCR 781 Relied on Para 11 2004 (4) Suppl. SCR 380 Relied on Para 13 1995 (6) Suppl. SCR 731 Relied on Para 13 CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No. 1439 of 2012. From the Judgment & Order dated 28.9.2010 of the High Court of Orissa at Cuttack in Criminal Revision No. 676 of 1999. J.K. Das, Sandeep Devashish Das, Avijeet Bhujabal (for Parmanand Gaur) for the Appellant. E Shibashish Misra, Nidhi for the Respondents. The following Order of the Court was delivered ORDER F 1. Leave granted. 2. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order passed by the High Court of Judicature of Orissa at Cuttack in Criminal Revision No.676 of 1999, dated 28.09.2010. By the G impugned judgment and order, the High Court, while confirming the order passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Keonjhar, Orissa in Criminal Appeal No.59 of 1995, has modified the sentence awarded to the accused to the period already undergone by him. It is this portion of the order which is taken H excepti0n to by the complainant in this appeal. The only issue PUSHPANJALI SAHU v. STATE OF ORISSA 729 that arises for our consideration and decision in this appeal is: A whether the High Court was justified in altering/modifying the quantum of sentence awarded by the learned Trial Judge and confirmed by the Sessions Court. 3. The complainant was employed as a Matron in a 8 Government Women's College Hostel. The accused was a chowkidar/night watchman in that hostel. The offence that was alleged against the appellant was that he committed an offence of rape under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code on the complainant. The prosecution had led its evidence. The Trial C Court, after analysing the evidence on record, concluded that the prosecution has proved its case and accordingly, convicted the accused and awarded the sentence directing the accused to undergo imprisonment for a period of 7 years. 4. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order passed by the D Trial Court, the accused had filed an appeal before the learned Sessions Judge, Keonjhar, Orissa. The appellate court, after considering the entire evidence on record has confirmed the order passed by the Trial Court. 5. The accused, being aggrieved by the aforesaid two orders, had filed a Revision Petition before the High Court. The High Court once again has considered the entire issue in detail and thereafter has come to the conclusion that the Trial Court was justified in coming to the conclusion that the accused has committed the offence of rape against the matron of the hostel. However, taking a lenient view of the matter, has reduced the sentence awarded by the Trial Court from
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.