STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH versus BODEM SUNDARA RAO

Citation: [1995] SUPP. 4 S.C.R. 48 · Decided: 22-09-1995 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: A.S. ANAND, K.S. PARIPOORNAN · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH 
\', 
BODEM SUNDARA RAO 
SEPTEMBER 22, 1995 
[AS. ANAND AND K.S. PARlPOORNAN, .1.1.J 
Clin1inal Laiv : 
Indian Penal Code, 1861}-S.376( I )-Rape of minor girl-T!ia/ Cowt 
convicting and sentencing accused to JO years R.1.-High Coiut niaintaining 
conviction and reducing sentence to 4 yews R.f.-Appea/ by State on ground 
of inadequacy of sentence-Sentence enhanced to 111ininnun presc1ibed under 
s.376(1) i.e. 7 years R.l. 
The respondent was charged with rape of a girl of 13-14 years of age 
D in broad day light. He was tried and convicted for an offence under SJ76 
IPC. The Trial Court imposed the sentence of' ten years R.I. on him. 
On appeal, the High Court maintained the conviction but reduced 
the sentence to four years R.I. 
E 
The Stale preferred the present appeal complaining about the inade-
F 
11uacy of the sentence Imposed. It was submitted that in any event the 
sentence should not have been less than the minimum prescribed under 
S.376(1) IPC (aller amendment). 
Allowing the appeal, this Court 
HELD : 1.1. In recent years, the crime against women are on the rise. 
These crimes are affront to the human dignity of the society. Imposition 
of grossly inadequate sentence and particularly against the mandate of the 
Legislature not only causes injustice to the victim of the crime in particular 
and the society as a \Vhole in general but also at times encourages a 
G criminal. The Courts have an obligation while a\\larding punishment to 
in1pose appropriate punishment so as to respond to the society's cry for 
justice against such crin1inals. Public abhorence of the crime needs a ' 
rellection through the court's verdict in the measure of punishment. The 
Courts must not only keep in view the rights of the criminal but also the 
H 
rights of the victim of crime and the society at large \\'hile considering 
48 
• 
STATE v. BODEM SUNDARARAO 
49 
in1position of the appropriate punishment. The heinous crime of' con1mit-
A 
ting rape on a helpless 13/14 years old girl shakes our judicial conscit'nce. 
The otfence \\'as inhun1ane. There are no extenuating or mitigating cir· 
cumstances available on the record which nuiy justify imposition of sen-
tence less than the minimmh prescribed by the Legislature under Section 
376(1) of the Act. [51-G-H, 52-A] 
1.2. The High Court was clearly in error in reducing the sentence 
imposed upon the respondent and that too without assigning any reasons, 
much less special and adequate reasons. The High Court appears to have 
overlooked the mandate of the Legislature as reflected in Section 376 (I) 
B 
IPC. [51-B] 
C 
13. To show mercy in the case of such a heinous crime would be 
travesity of justice and the plea for leniency is wholly misplaced. [51-F] 
1.4. While maintaining the conviction of the respondent for the 
offence under Section 376 Indian Penal Code, the sentence of 4 years' RI D 
is enhanced to 7 years' RI, which is the minimum prescribed sentence 
• 
under the Section, for there are no adec1uate or special reasons to impose 
a sentence less than the prescribed minimum. [52-C] 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE .JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No. 
1143 of 1995. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 23.9.87 of the Andhra Pradesh 
High Court in Crl. A. No. 285 of 1986. 
Guntur Prabhakar for the Appellant 
Suresh C. Gupta for the Respondent. 
The following Order of the Court was delivered : 
Leave granted. 
E 
F 
G 
On 16.2.1985 the prosecutrix PW2, aged between 13-14 years was 
sexually assaulted by the respondent in broadday light. The proseculrix was 
carrying lunch for her fathCr, ,Vho \Vas grazing cattle in the fields when the 
respondent all of a sudden caught hold of her and committed rape on her 
despite her protestations. The prosecutrix, who \Vas bleeding profusely H 
50 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1995] SUPP. 4 S.C.R. 
A 
from her vagina on account of the rape committed by the respondent, 
reported the incident to her father, PW-3 and to her mother PW-4. The 
First Information Report was thereafter lodged with the police. The 
prosecutrix was medically examined and the doctor opined that she had 
been subjected to rape. The respondent was sent up for trial under Section 
B 
c 
D 
376 Indian Penal Code. The Trial Court after appraising the evidence on 
the record found the respondent guilty of an offence under Section 376 
Indian Penal Code vide judgment dated 7th February, 1986 and imposed 
the sentence of ten years rigorous imprisonment on him. The r
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.