STATE OF HARYANA versus PREM CHAND AND ORS.

Citation: [1989] SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 496 · Decided: 14-12-1989 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: B.C. RAY · Disposal: Dismissed

cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

.A 
B 
c 
D 
STATE OF HARYANA 
v. 
PREM CHAND AND ORS. 
DECEMBER 14, 1989 
[B.C. RAY ANDS. RATNAVEL PANDIAN, JJ.] 
Constitution of India, 1950: Articles 137 and 145-Review of 
judgment-Power exercisable subject to the rules.framed. 
Supreme Court Rules, 1966: Order XL, Rule I-Review of judg-
ment in criminal proceeding-Only on ground of error apparent on the 
face of the record. 
Indian Penal Code, 1860: Section 376---Character or reputation 
of victim-Not relevant in awarding sentence-Not a mitigation or 
extenuating circumstance under proviso to so. S.376(2). 
This Court rendered a judgment in this case on 31.1.1989 
confirming the conviction of both the respondents and reducing the 
sentence of imprisonment from 10 years to 5 years by invoking the 
proviso to Section 376(2) I.P.C. 
E 
The petitioner State has sought review of the said judgment. 
Dismissing the review petitions, this Court, 
HELD: 1. As per order XL Rule 1 of Supreme Court Rules, 1966, 
review in criminal proceedings is limited to errors apparent on the face 
F 
of record. In the instant case, there is no error apparent on the face of 
the record necessitating review of the judgment. [498F] 
P.N. Eswara Iyer and Ors. v. Registrar, Supreme Court of India, 
[1980] 4 SCC 680: Sow Chandra Kanta and Anr. v. Sheikh Habib, 
[1975] 3 SCR 933; Sheonandan Paswan v. State of Bihar and Ors., 
G 
[1983)4SCC 104,reliedon. 
2. The very confirmation of the conviction accepting the sole 
testimony of the victim, rejecting the arguments of the defence counsel, 
is itself a clear indication that this court was of the view that the charac-
ter or reputation of tbe victim has no bearing or relevance either in the 
H 
matter of adjudging the guilt of the accused or imposing punishment 
496 
STATE OF HARYANA v. PREM CHAND [RAY, J.] 
497 
under Section 376 I.P.C. Such factors are wholly alien to the very scope 
and object of Section 376 and can never serve either as mitigating or 
extenuating circumstances for imposing the sub-minimum sentence 
with the aid of the proviso to Section 376(2) of the I.P.C. [499G-H] 
3. This Court neither characterised the victim, as a woman of 
questionable character and easy virtue nor made any reference to her 
character or reputation in any part of the judgment but used the ex-
pression "conduct" in the lexigraphical meaning for the limited 
purpose of showing as to how she had behaved or conducted herself in 
not telling any one for about 5 days about the sexual assault perpetrated 
on her till she was examined on 28.3.1984 by the sub-Inspector of 
Police. The word "conduct" was not used with reference to the charac-
ter or reputation of the victim. [SOOB-C] 
4. This Court is second to none in upholding the decency and 
dignity of womanhood and this Court has not expressed any view in the 
judgment that character, reputation or status of a raped victim is a 
relevant factor for consideration by the Court while awarding the 
sentence to a rapist. [SOOD I 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Review Petition 
(Criminal) Nos. 241-242of1989. 
IN 
Criminal Appeal Nos. 544-545 of 1986. 
Mahabir Singh for the Petitioner. 
A.N. Molla, S.B. Upadhyay for the Respondents. 
The Order of the Court was delivered by 
RAY, J.It is very unfortunate that a controversy has arisen follow-
ing the judgment sought to be reviewed in Criminal Appeal.Nos. 544-45 
of 1986 rendered by this Bench on 31st January 1989 whereby this Court 
while confirming the conviction of both the respondents/accused 
reduced the sentence of imprisonment in respect of each of the respon-
dents from 10 years to 5 years by invoking the proviso to Section 
376(2) of the Indian Penal Code observing· "the peculiar facts and· 
B 
•• 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
498 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1989] Supp. 2 S.C.R. 
A 
circumstances of this case coupled with the conduct of the victim girl, 
in our view, do not call for the minimum sentence as prescribed under 
Section 376(2) ." The State of Haryana has filed the above petitions 
seeking review of the judgment and to "pass such other or further 
order( s) as may be necessary in the circumstances of the case." 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
At the outset, we may examine the scope of review of a judgment 
in a criminal case already pronounced by this Court. Article 137 of the 
Constitution of India gives the power to the Supreme Court to review 
its judgment but such special power is exercisable in accordance with, 
and subject to, the rules of this Court made under Article 

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.