STATE OF M.P. versus BASODI

Citation: [2009] 6 S.C.R. 1166 · Decided: 27-04-2009 · 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 
B 
c 
[2009] 6 S.C.R. 1166 
STATE OF M.P. 
v. 
BASODI 
(Criminal Appeal No. 1002 of 2004) 
APRIL 27, 2009 
[DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, D.K. JAIN AND DR. 
MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA, JJ.] 
Sentence/Sentencing : 
Conviction uls. 376 /PC - In appeal, High Court reducing 
the sentence to less than prescribed minimum -- Held: The 
Court has the discretion to award sentence lesser than the 
prescribed minimum, only for adequate and special reasons 
0 
and not otherwise -- On facts, reason ascribed for reducing 
the sentence was not adequate and special - Order of trial 
Court restored. 
E 
Award of punishment - Criteria for detennination - Role 
of Courts - Discussed. 
'Words and Phrases - 'Rape' and ·carnal knowledge' -
Meaning of, in the context of s. 376 /PC. 
The question for consideration in the present appeal 
F 
is whether High Court, while upholding the conviction of 
the respondent-accused u/s. 376 IPC was right in 
reducing the sentence to less than the prescribed 
minimum. 
G 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1. In both sub-sections (1) and (2) of Section 
376 IPC, minimum sentences are prescribed. Both in 
cases of sub-sections (1) and (2), the Court has the 
discretion to impose a sentence of imprisonment less 
H 
1166 
STATE OF M.P. v. BASODI 
1167 
" 
than the prescribed minimum for 'adequate and special 
A 
reasons'. The reason has not only to be adequate but also 
special. What is adequate and special would depend 
upon several factors and no strait-jacket formula can be 
indicated. If the court does not mention such reasons in 
the judgment there is no scope for awarding a sentence 
B 
lesser than the prescribed minimum. In the instant case, 
the only reason indicated by the High Court is that the 
accused belonged to rural. areas, was an illiterate 
labourer and belonged to Scheduled Tribe. The same can 
by no stretch of imagination be considered either c 
adequate or special. The requirement in law is cumulative. 
[Paras 16, 17 and 18] [1177-8-C; 1177-0-F] 
State of M.P. v. Babbu Barkare @ Dalap Singh, 2005 (5) 
•sec 413 and State of M.P. v. Babula/, 2008 (1) sec 234,_ D 
relied on. 
" 
2.1. By deft modulation sentencing process be stern 
where 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 
E 
it was planned and committed, the motive for commission 
of the crime, the conduct of the accused, the nature of 
weapons used and ·all other attending circumstances are 
. ) 
relevant facts which would enter into the area of 
consideration. [Para 7] [1173-8-D] 
F 
2.2. Undue sympathy to impose inadequate sentence 
would do more harm to the justice system to undermine 
the public confidence in the efficacy of law and society 
could not long endure under such serious threats. It is, 
G 
..., 
therefore, the duty of every court to award proper 
_. 
sentence having regard to the nature of the offence and 
the manner in which it was executed or committed etc. 
[Para 8] [1173-G-H; 117 4-A] 
H 
1168 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 6 S.C.R. 
A 
2.3. The criminal law adheres in general to the 
principle of proportionality in prescribing liability 
according to the culpability of each kind of criminal 
conduct. It ordinarily allows some significant discretion 
to the Judge in arriving at a sentence in each case, 
B presumably to permit sentences that reflect more subtle 
considerations of culpability that are raised by the special 
facts of each case. Judges in essence affirm that 
. punishment, ought always to fit the crime; yet i.n practice 
sentences 
are 
determined 
largely 
by 
other 
c considerations. Sometimes it is the correctional needs of 
the perpetrator that are offered to justify a sentence. 
Sometimes the desirability of keeping him out of 
circulation, and sometimes even the .tragic results of his 
crime. Inevitably these considerations cause a departure~ 
0 from just desert as the basis of punishment and create 
cases of apparent injustice that are serious and 
.., 
widespread. [Para 9) [117 4-8-E] 
2.4. After giving due consideration to the facts and 
circumstances of each case, for deciding just and 
E appropriate sentence to be awarded for an offence, the 
aggravating and mitigating factors and circumstances in 
which a crime has been committed are to be delicately 
balanced on the basis of really relevant circumstances in 
a dispassionate manner by the Court. [Para 11) [1174-H; 
F 1175-A-B] 
2.5. No fo

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