STATE OF KARNATAKA versus RAJU

Citation: [2007] 9 S.C.R. 970 · Decided: 14-09-2007 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARIJIT PASAYAT · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
STATEOFKARNATAKA 
v. 
RAJU 
SEPTEMBER 14,2007 
fDR.ARIJITPASAYAT ANDP.P.NAOLEKAR,JJ.) 
Penal Code, 1860; Section 376: 
Rape of a minor below 12 years of age:_ Trial Court found the accused 
C guilty of offence punishable u/s.376 and imposing sentence of 7 years-
Sentence reduced to 3~ years by High Court-On appeal, Held: Measure of 
punishment in a case of rape must depend upon conduct of the accused,. state 
and age of the victim and gravity of criminal. act-Crime of violence upon 
women need to be severally dealt with-In a case of rape, s. 376(2) shows 
D the legislative mandate in imposing a sentence, which could be extended to 
life imprisonment, thus, reflects the intent oJ stringency in sentence-In 
operating the sentencing system, law should adopt the cqrrective machinery 
or the deterrence based on factual matrix-In the facts and circumstances of 
the case and in view of the provisions of law, reduction of the sentence by 
the High Court without assigning any special and adequate reasons, is 
E unsustainable and, thus, set aside and sentence as imposed by the trial Court 
restored-Sentencing. 
Proportion between crime and punishment-Discussed in the context 
of ser.tencing. 
F 
Proviso-Construction of-Discussed in the context of sentencing 
u/s.376 /PC. 
A girl, aged less than 12 years, was allegedly sexually ravished by the 
accused-respondent. First Information Report was lodged and police 
investigated the matter. On completion of investigation, charge-sheet was filed 
G by the Police. The trial comi convicted the accused under Section 376 IPC. 
An appeal was preferred by the accused before the High Court. The same was 
disposed of by the High Court maintaining the conviction but sentence was 
reduced to 3Yz years. Hence the present appeal. 
H. 
970 
,... 
STA TE v. RAJU 
971 
Appellant contended that in a heinous crime like rape, the High Court A 
was not justified in reducing the sentence by referring to certain 
circumstances which are not only irrelevant but also cannot constitute special 
reasons warranting reduction in sentence. 
Amicus Curiae submitted that though the offence of rape is a heinous 
crime but while sentencing an accused the same should be tempered with B 
mercy. Though such a plea was not taken before the trial court, High Court 
indicated some reasons which may not be sufficient to justify the reduction 
in the sentence per se, yet as it exercised judicial discretion, there is no need 
for interference; and that both the Courts below have noted that the victim 
was aged about 10 years, and in such a case, stringent punishment is provided C 
for in terms ofS~tion 376(2)(1) IPC. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD:l.1. In sub-section (2) of Section 376 l.P.C. more stringent 
punishment can be awarded taking into account the special features indicated D 
in the said sub-section. The present case is covered by Section 376(2)(1) IPC 
i.e. when rape is committed on a woman when she is under 12 years of age. 
Admittedly, in the case at hand the victim was 10 years of agr at the time of 
commission of offence. (Para 7) (975-CJ 
1.2. It is a fundamental rule of construction that a proviso must be E 
consi<!ered with relation to the principal matter to which it stands as a proviso 
particularly in such like penal provisions. The courts are obliged to respect 
the legislative mandate in the matter of awarding of sentence in all such cases. 
Recourse to the proviso can be had only for "special and adequab.: reasons" 
and not in a casual manner. Whether there exist any "special and adequate 
reasons" would depend upon a variety of factors and the peculiar facts and F 
circumstances of each case. No hard and fast rule can be laid down in that 
behalf of univt:rsal application. (Para 91 (976-B, <;J 
Dinesh Alias Buddha v. State of Rajasthan, (20061 3 SCC 771, relied 
on. 
2.1. The measure of punishment in a case of rape cannot depend upon 
the social status of the victim or the accused. It must depend upon the conduct 
of the accused, the state and age of the sexually assaulted female and the 
gravity of the criminal act. Crimes of violence upon women need to be severely 
dealt with. (Para 8) (975-D, EJ 
G 
H 
972 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2007} 9 S.C.R. 
A 
2.2. Public abhorrence of the crime needs reflection through imposition 
of appropriate sentence by the Court. There are no extenuating or mitigating 
circumstances available on the record which may justify imposition of any 
sentence less 

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