STATE OF KARNATAKA versus PUTTARAJA

Citation: [2003] SUPP. 6 S.C.R. 274 · Decided: 27-11-2003 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: DORAISWAMY RAJU · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
STATE OF KARNATAKA 
v. 
PUTTARAJA 
NOVEMBER 27, 2003 
B 
[DORAISWAMY RAJU AND ARIJIT PASAYAT, JJ.] 
Sentencing : 
Appropriate sentence-Award of--Principles-Discussed. 
C 
Penal Code, 1860: 
Section 376-Rape of pregnant woman in the presence of her 
husband-Minimum sentence prescribed as seven years-Trial Court 
awarding 5 years-High Court reducing sentence to the period of custody 
D of 46 days already undergone-Justificiation of;_Held: There was no 
·scope of awarding sentence lesser than prescribed minimum-Reasons 
given by High Court for reducing the sentence not adequate and special-
Before the High Court, State has not challenged the quantum of sentence-
Hence sentence awarded by trial Court restored-Code of Criminal 
E Procedure, 1973-Section 29. 
A pregnant womari was raped in the presence of her ftusband. 
Respondent-accuse~ was charged unde.r Section 376 IPC. Though the 
minimum sentence prescribed was 7 years," tri~l court sentenced the 
respondent to 5 years imprisonment and fine of Rs. 2000. High Court 
F maintained the conviction, but reduceed the sentence to the period of 
custody of 46 days already undergone. Hence the present appeal. 
Appellant-State contended that if such minuscule sentence is 
awarded for such a grave offence, it would be giving ·premium to one 
of the most obnoxious acts punishable under the IPC; that the sentence 
G should be commensurate with the nature. of the offence; that the High 
Court did not indicate any reason for reducing the sentence below the 
prescribed minimum which under the proviso to Section 376(l) IPC 
can be done for adequate and special reasons. 
H 
Respondent-accused contended that the High· Court has given 
274 
. ._ 
-
STA TE OF KARNA T AKA v. PUTT ARAJA 
275 
adequate reasons as to why it considered the custodial sentence arf.eady A 
undergone to be adequate. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD : 1. In operating the sentencing system, law should adopt the 1 
corrective machinery or the deterrence ideology based on factual matrix. B 
By deft modulation sentencing process be stern w!tere it should be, and , 
tempered with mercy where it warrants to be. The facts and given 
circumstances in each case, the nature of the crime, the manner in which 
. it was planned and committed, the motive for commission of the crime, 
the conduct of the accused, the nature of weapons used, the indelible 'C 
impact on the victim and his family and all other attending circumstances 
are relevant facts which would enter into the area of consideration. 
Further, it is the duty of every court to award proper sentence having 
regard to these. Furthermore, the aggravating and mitigating factors 
and circumstances in which a crime has been committed are to be D 
delicately balanced on the basis of really relevant circumstances in a 
dispassionate manner by the Court. (278-G-H; 279-A-C; 280-8) 
Sevaka Perumal etc. v. State of Tamil Nadu, AIR (1991) SC 1463, 
referred to. 
Dennis Councle MCGDautha v. State of California, 402 US 183: 28 
L.D. 2d 711, referred to. 
Law in Changing Society by Friedman, referred to. 
E 
2.1. Criminal law adheres in general to the principle of F 
proportionality in prescribing liability according to the culpability of 
each kind of criminal conduct. Proportion between crime and punishment 
is a goal respected in principle, and in spite of errant notions, it remains 
a strong influence in the determination of sentences. (279-C-D, 279-F) 
G 
2.2. The object should be to protect the society_ and to deter the 
criminal in achieving the avowed object oflaw by imposing appropriate 
sentence. It is expected that the Courts would operate the sentencing 
system so as to impose such sentence which reflects the conscience of 
the society and the sentence process bas to be stern where it should be. H 
276 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2003] SUPP. 6 S.C.R. 
A Imposition of sentence without considering its effect on the social order 
in many cases may be in reality a futile exercise. Any liberal attitude 
by imposing meager sentences or taking too sympathetic view merely 
on account of lapse of time or considerations personal to the accused 
only in respect of such offences will be result-wise counter productive 
B in long run and against social interest which needs to be cared for and 
strengthened by the required string of deterrence inbuilt in sentencing 
system. {280-E-H] 
2.3. Leniency in matters involving sexual offences is not only 
undersirable but also against pub

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