STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH versus BABBU BARKARE @ DALAP SINGH

Citation: [2005] SUPP. 1 S.C.R. 381 · Decided: 13-05-2005 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARIJIT PASAYAT · Disposal: Disposed off

cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

j 
ST A TE OF MADHYA PRADESH 
A 
v. 
BABBU BARKARE @ DALAP SINGH 
MAY 13, 2005 
[ARIJIT PASAYAT AND S.H. KAPADIA, JJ.] 
B 
Sentencing-D.etermination of-Offence of rape-Conviction-
Punishment of 7 years by trial Court-Reduced by High Court-Permissibility 
of_:_Held: While determining the sentence, the facts of each case, nature of C 
crime, the manner in which it was planned or committed, the motive, conduct 
of the accused, nature of weapons used and other attending circumstances are 
relevant~Undue sympathy to impose inadequate sentence would. do more 
harm to the justice system-Principle of proportionality should be adopted-
Jn rape cases, if the Court does not mention adequate and special reasons, a 
sentence lesser than the prescribed minimum u/s 376(1) and (2) cannot be D 
'awarded-The reason given for reducing th~ sentence in the present case is 
:neither adequate nor special-Matter remitted to High Court on the question 
of sentence-Penal' Code, 1860-Section 376. 
Words and Phrases: · 
'Rape '-Meaning of in the context of Penal Code, 1860. 
In the present case, sentence of imprisonment of 7 years, imposed 
by trial Court for the offence punishable u/s 376 IPC, was reduced to 
already undergone i.e. 11 months by High Court on the ground that the 
E 
accused was an illiterate labourer. 
F 
In appeal to this Court, appellant-State contended that while dealing 
with the offence of rape which was established, reduction of sentence 
should not have been ordered on the specious reasonings. 
Disposing of the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1.1. 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 
381 
G 
H 
382 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS {2005) SUPP. I S.C.R. 
A than the prescribed minimum for 'adequate and special reasons'. If the 
Court does not mention such reasons in the judgment there is no scope 
for awarding a sentence lesser than the prescribed minimum. (390-D-E) 
1.2. In order to exercise the discretion of reducing the sentence the 
statutory requirement is that the Court has to record "adequate and 
B special reasons" in the judgment and not fanciful reasons which would 
permit the Court to impose a sentence less than. the prescribed minimum. 
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. What is applicable to trial Courts regarding recording 
C reasons for a departure from minimum sentence is equally applicable to 
the High Court. The only reason indicated by the High Court is that the 
accused belonged to rural areas. The same can by no stretch of imagination 
be considered either adequate or special. The requirement in law is 
cumulative. (390-F, GJ 
D 
2.1. In operating the sentencing system, law should adopt the 
corrective machinery or the deterrence based on factual matrix. 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 it was planned 
and committed; the motive for commission of the crime, the conduct of 
E the accused. the nature of weapons used and all other attending 
circumstances are relevant facts which would enter into the area of 
consideration. (387-D-El 
Mahesh v. State of MP., (1987] 2 SCR 710, relied on. 
F 
"Law in Changing Society" by Friedman, referred to. 
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 
G threats. It is, 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. (387-G-H; 388-F] 
Sevaka Perumal etc. v. State ofTamil Nadu, AIR (1991) SC 1463, relied 
on. 
H 
STATEOFM.P. v. BABBUBARKARE@DALAPSINGH 
383 
2.3-. The criminal law adheres in general to the principle of A 
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, presumably to permit 
sentences that reflect more subtle considerations of culpability that are 
raised by the special facts of

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