STATE OF M.P. versus MADAN LAL

Citation: [2015] 7 S.C.R. 998 · Decided: 01-07-2015 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: DIPAK MISRA · Disposal: Case Partly allowed

Cited by 2 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
[2015] 7 S.C.R. 998 
STATE OF M.P. 
v. 
MADAN LAL 
(Criminal Appeal No.231of2015) 
JULY01, 2015 
[DIPAK MISRA AND PRAFULLA C. PANT, JJ.] 
c 
Penal Code, 1860 - s. 376(2)(f) rw s. 511 ands. 354 -
Rape - Prosecution case that accused raped a seven year 
old girl- Conviction uls. 376(2)(f) rw s. 511 and sentenced to 
rigorous imprisonment for five years - High Court in view of 
compromise between the accused and the parents of the 
o victim, converted the offence to one u/s. 354 and confined 
the sentence to the period of custody already undergone -
On appeal, held: In a case of rape or attempt of rape, there 
cannot be a compromise or settlement as it would be against 
the honour of the victim which matters the most - These are 
E crimes against the body of a woman which is her own temple 
- These offences suffocate the breath of life and sully the 
reputation -Adopting a soft approach or a liberal one would 
be a spectacular error - Any kind of liberal approach or 
thought of mediation is completely sans legal permissibility 
F - Matter remitted back to the High Court for a fresh decision. 
Judicial Deprecation - Rape cases - Some of the 
appellate judges, contrary to the precedents and against the 
normative mandate of law, assuming a presumptuous role -
G It ruptures the sense of justice and punctures the criminal 
justice dispensation system. 
Partly allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1.1 Appellate Judges, contrary to the 
H 
998 
STATE OF M.P. v. MADAN LAL 
999 
precedents and against the normative mandate of law, A 
assuming a presumptuous role have paved the path of 
unbelievable laconicity to deal with criminal appeals 
which, ruptures the sense of justice and punctures the 
criminal justice dispensation system. [Para 11] [1005-G; 
1006-A] 
B 
1.2 The Single Judge did not at all referred to the 
evidence that was adduced during the trial. The Single 
Judge in his judgment has only stated that the 
prosecution has examined so many witnesses and filed c 
nine documents. Th~ said approach does not satisfy the 
requirement of exercise of the appellate jurisdiction. The 
Single Judge was influenced by the compromise that 
was entered into between the accused and the parents 
of the victim as the victim was a minor. The trial judge D 
had rejected the said application on the ground that the 
offence was not compoundable. [Paras 14, 15] [1008-E-
G; 1009-A-C] 
Amar Singh v. Ba/winder Singh and Others 2003 (1) SCR E 
754 : (2003) 2 SCC 518; State of Madhya Pradsesh v. Bhura 
Kunjda (2009) 17 SCC 346; K. Anbazhagan v. State of 
Kamataka and Others Criminal Appeal No.637 of 2015 -
referred to. 
1.3 In a case of rape or attempt of rape, the F 
conception of compromise under no circumstances can 
really be thought of. These are crimes against the body 
of a woman which is her own temple. There are offences 
which suffocate the breath of life and sully the reputation. 
And reputation, needless to emphasis, is the richest G 
jewel one can conceive of in life. No one would allow it 
to be extinguished. When a human frame is defiled, the 
"purest treasure", is lost. Dignity of a woman is a part of 
her non-perishable and immortal self and no one should H 
ever think of paining it in clay. There cannot be a 
compromise or settlement as it would be against her 
1000 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2015] 7 S.C.R. 
A honour which matters the most. It is sacrosanct. 
Sometimes solace is given that the perpetrator of the 
crime has acceded to enter into wedlock with her which 
is nothing but putting pressure in an adroit manner; and 
the Courts are to remain absolutely away from this 
B subterfuge to adopt a soft approach to the case, for any 
kind of liberal approach has to be put in the compartment 
of spectacular error. Or to put it differently, it would be in 
the realm of a sanctuary of error. It is said so as such an 
attitude reflects lack of sensibility towards the dignity, 
C the elan vital, of a woman. Any kind of liberal approach 
or thought of mediation in this regard is thoroughly and 
completely sans legal permissibility. [Para 16] [1010-A-
F] 
D 
1.4 The matter is remitted to the High Court for a 
reappraisal of the evidence and for a fresh decision. As 
the respondent was in custody at the time of the 
pronouncement of the judgment by the trial court, he 
would be taken into custody forthwith by the 
E Superintendent of Police. [Para 20] [1012-E-G] 
Ashok@ Pappu v. State of M.P. 2005 Cr.L.J.(M.P.) 471; 
Phulki@ Sant

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