LexSTATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH versus POLAMALA RAJU @ RAJARAO
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH A v. POLAMALA RAJU @ RAJARAO AUGUST 9, 2000 [DR. A.S. ANAND, CJ., R.C. LAHOTI AND K.G. BALAKRISHNAN, JJ.] B Indian Penal (ode-Section 376(2)-Rape of 5 year of old girl- Accused convicted and sentenced to undergo JO years RI by Sessions Court- High Court c011firming conviction-Reducing sentence to 5 years RI-No special or adequate reasons shown-Held, sentence cannot be reduced C without proper application of mind. Practice and Procedure-Plea that fine may be imposed in place of sentence o,f jail term-Due to long lapse o,f time--No mitigating circumstances shown-Held, cannot be permitted in such cases. Penology-Sentencing in offence o,f rape . Respondent was tried for an offence under Section 376 IPC, for committing rape on a S year old girl. The Sessions Judge convicted the Respondent under Section 376 IPC and awarded a sentence of 10 years D R.I. and a fine, and in default of payment of fine simple imprisonment for E one week. On an appeal filed by the Respondent, Single Judge of the High Court confirmed the conviction but reduced the period of sentence to S years. In appeal to this Court by the State as against reduction of sentence, the Amicuscurae submitted that because of the long time which has elapsed F subsequent to the date of offence aud the possibility that the prosecutrix as also the Respondent may have settled in life, a fine instead of sentence of jail be imposed. Allowing the appeal, this Court HELD : 1. It is an obligation of the sentencing court to consider all relevant facts and circumstances bearing on the question of sentence and impose a sentence commensurate with the gravity of the offence. The sentencing court must hear the loud cry for justice by the society and more particularly, in cases of heinous crime of rape of innocent helpless chil- dren, as in this case, of the victim of crime and respond by imposing a 329 G H A B c 330 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2000) SUPP. 2 S.C.R. proper sentence. [332-F-G] 2. The order contains no reasons, much less "special or adequate reasons". The sentence has been reduced in a rather mechanical manner without proper application of mind. The provisions of Section 376(2) IPC were not at all present to the mind of the Court. [333-B] State of A.P. v. Bedem Sundara Rao, [1995] 6 SCC 230 and State of Karnataka v. Krishnappa, [2000] 4 SCC 75, referred to. 3. There are no extenuating or mitigating circumstances available on the record which may justify imposition of sentence less than the pre- scribed minimum on the Respondent. To show mercy in a case like this, would be travesty of justice. There are no reasons, much less sufficient and adequate reasons available on the record to impose a lesser sentence than the prescribed minimum. Insofar as the judicial conscience is concerned there is no reason to go against the legislative mandate and award any D lesser sentence. [334-E; 335-A] 4. The High Court, in the facts and circumstances of the case, was not at all justified in interfering with the proper exercise of discretion by the trial Court. The order of the high Court insofar as the reduction of sentence is concerned is set aside and the sentence of 10 years R.I., as E imposed by the Trial Court is restored. The Respondent shall be taken into custody to undergo the remaining sentence. (334-G] CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No. 629 of 1996. F From the Judgment and Order dated 25.9.87 of the Andhra Pradesh High G Court in Crl.A. No. 341 of 1986. Guntur Prabhakar and Ms. T. Anamika for the Appellant. A.S. Pundir (A.C.) for the Respondent. The Judgment of the Court was delivered : A little girl of five years of age was ravished by the respondent on 4th January, 1985 at about 2.00 P.M. taking advantage of her helpless state. H The respondent a neighbour of the prosecutrix living almost opposite her ( STATE v. POLAMALA RAJU [ANAND, J.] 331 house was tried for an offence under Section 376 IPC on an FIR lodged by the A father of the prosecutrix. The version of the prosecutrix regarding the commis- sion of offence by the respondent, as narrated in court through her mother, PW- 1 received ample corroboration from medical evidence and other evidence led in ttir case. We are not repeating the prosecution version of the case or gist of the evidence led in case for the simple reason that the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, West Godavari, after recording e
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.