STATE OF M.P. versus BALA @ BALARAM

Citation: [2005] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 859 · Decided: 03-10-2005 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: R.C. LAHOTI · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

STATEOFM.P. 
A 
v. 
BALA @ BALARAM 
OCTOBER 3, 2005 
[R.C. LAHOTI, CJ., G.P. MATHUR AND P.K. BALASUBRAMANYAN, JJ.] B 
Penal Code, 1860-Sections 376(/) and (2) proviso, 376(2)(g)-
Commission of Rape-Award of sentence of I 0 years RI and fine-Reduction 
of, to the period already undergone about 9 months, by High Court- C 
Correctness of-Held: High Court reduced the sentence inadequately without 
assigning adequate and special reasons-Hence, order illegal and set aside-
Matter remitted back to High Court for fresh consideration-Sentencing. 
The question which arose for consideration in this appeal was with 
regard to the legality of the order passed by the High Court in reducing the D 
sentence of 10 years R. I. awarded passed by the trial court for commission 
of offence under section 376(2)(g) IPC, to the period already undergone about 
9 months. 
Allowing the appeal and remitting the matter,to the High Court, the 
Court 
E 
HELD: Per G.P. Mathur J. (For himself and CJ!): 
1.1. Sub-section (1) of Section 3761.P.C. provides that whoever, except 
in the cases provided for by sub-section (2), commits rape shall be punished 
with imprisonment of either description for a term which shall not be less F 
than 7 years but which may be for life or for a term which may extend to 10 
years and shall also be liable to fine. In the category of cases covered under 
sub-section (2) of Section 376, the sentence cannot be less than l 0 years but 
which may be for life and shall also be liable to fine. The proviso appended to 
sub-section (I) lays down that the Court may for adequate and special reasons 
to be mentioned in the judgment, impose a sentence of imprisonment for a G 
term of less than 7 years. There is a similar proviso to sub-section (2) which 
empowers the Court to award a sentence of less than l 0 years for adequate 
and special reasons to be mentioned in the judgment. [862-A-B[ 
859 
H 
860 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2005] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 
A 
1.2. The High Court in the impugned order has awarded a sentence which 
is not only grossly inadequate but is also contrary to express provision of 
law. It did not assign any satisfactory reason much less adequate and special 
reasons for reducing the sentence to a term which is far below the prescribed 
minimum and passed a very short and cryptic judgment. It disposed of the 
appeal in a most unsatisfactory manner without considering the evidence 
B adduced by the parties, exhibiting complete non-application of mind. Therefore, 
I 
the sentence awarded by the High Court is clearly illegal and as such the 
order of High Court is set aside and matter is remitted back to the High Court 
for a fresh consideration. [862-B-C-DJ 
C 
Amar Singh v. Ba/winder Singh. [2003) 2 SCC 518, referred to. 
Per P.K. Balasubramanyan (Supplementing): 
I. I. To view an offence of rape once it is proved, lightly, is itself an affront 
to society. Though the award of maximum punishment may depend on the 
D circumstances of the case, the award of the minimum punishment, generally, 
is imperative. The provisos to Section 376(1) and 376(2) I.P.C. give the power 
to the court to award a sentence lesser than the minimum for adequate and 
special reasons. The power under the proviso is not to be used indiscriminately 
or routinely. It is to be used sparingly and only in cases where special facts 
and circumstances justify a reduction. The reasons must be relevant to the 
E exercise of such discretion vested in the court. The reasons must be set out 
clearly and cogently. The mere existence of a discretion by itself does not 
justify its exercise. The long pendency of the criminal trial or the offer of the 
rapist to marry the victim are not relevant reasons. Nor is the age of the 
offender by itself an adequate reason. [864-B-C-DJ 
F 
1.2. It is true that reformation as a theory of punishment is in fashion 
but under the guise of applying such theory, Courts cannot forget their duty 
to society and to the victim. The Court has to consider the plight of the victim 
in a case involving rape and the social stigma that may follow the victim to 
the grave and which in most cases, practically ruins all prospects of a normal 
G life for the victim. The Court cannot afford to forget these aspects while 
imposing a punishment on the aggressor. The Court has to do justice to the 
society and to the victim on the one hand and to the offender on the other. The 
proper balance must be taken to have been stuck by the legislatur

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