LexSTATE OF MADHYA PRADESH versus BABULAL
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
1 ' t STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH A v. BABULAL DECEMBER 3, 2007 [C.K. THAKKERANDALTAMASKABIR,JJ.] B Penal Code, 1860-s. 37 6 (I )-Rape of married woman in broad day light under threat of knife-Conviction by trial Court-Sentence of7 years RI (minimum sentence)-High Court reducing the sentence c to period already undergone i.e. 2 months 3 days-On appeal, held: In view of the conviction of the accused having been rightly recorded by trial court and upheld by High Court, reducing of sentence to less than the mini.'11um sentence without 'adequate 'and 'special' reasons, is illegal-Trial Court was wholly right and fully justified in awarding D punishment for 7 years as envisaged bys. 376 (1)-Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, 1983-Sentencing. Sentence/Sentencing-Sexual offence against woman- Considerations for sentencing-held: In such cases, the accused should E be treated with heavy hands-Social impact of such crime has to be kept in mind-Liberal attitude or sympathetic view may prove to be counter productive in long run. Doctrines/Principles-Doctrine of proportionality-Jn prescribing 1 sentences-Discussed. F Respondent-accused was prosecuted for having committed rape on a married woman, in broad day light threatening her with knife. Prosecutrix reported the incident to her husband (PW-7) and her mother-in-law. Incident was also reported to PW-8 (employer of PW- G 7). Thereafter, PW-7 reported the incident to the Police. Prosecutrix as well as accused were medically examined. Accused took the plea of false implication. During trial, PW-8 turned hostile. Trial Court, relying on the evidence of prosecutrix (PW-5), PW-7 and PW-9 795 H 796 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007] 12 S.C.R. A (Doctor), held that accused was guilty of offence of rape and convicted him u/s376 IPC. However, accused was acquitted u/s. 506 II IPC. Accused was sentenced to RI for 7 years and fine of Rs. 2,500/-. In appeal, High Court reduced the sentence to that already undergone (i.e. two months and three days), on the grounds that the B accused was illiterate agriculturist from rural area and fine of Rs.2,500/- was imposed on him. Hence the present appeal. Allowing the appeal, the Court HELD: 1.1. The order of conviction of respondent-accused c recorded by the trial Court and confirmed by the High Court cannot be said to be faulty or illegal. The trial Court rightly held that the accused committed the crime. In her testimony on oath, prosecutrix narrated the incident. The trial Court rightly observed that the prosecutrix informed her husband about the incident, who in turn D contacted PW8-employer, but PW8 did nothing. The matter was also reported by prosecutrix to her mother-in-law who was blind. The trial Court rightly held that there was no unexplained delay in filing the complaint. The 'straightforward' evidence ofprosecutrix-PW5was believed by the Court and accordingly the accused was convicted. E The trial Court rightly rejected the defence. [Paras 7 and 13) (802-G-H; 803-A-B) 1.2. If a court of law finds evidence of prosecutrix truthful, trustworthy and reliable, conviction can be recorded solely on the basis of her testimony and no further corroboration is necessary. t ,,_ F [Para 14) (803-C) ~ Bharwada Bhoginbhai Hirjibhaiv. State of Gujarat, (1983) 3 SCC 217 and State of Rajasthan v. Narayan, (1992) 3 SCC 615, relied on. 1.3. The High Court manifestly erred in allowing the appeal and G in reducing the sentence imposed on the offender to the period 'already undergone' which was only two months and seven days, and committed grave illegality which has resulted in miscarriage of justice. There were no reasons much less 'adequate' and 'special' reasons to reduce the sentence less than the minimum required to H be imposed under sub-section (1) of Section 376, IPC. The trial Court STATE v. BABULAL 797 was wholly right and fully justified in awarding rigorous imprisonment A for seven years as envisaged by sub-section (1) of Section 376, IPC and there was no earthly reason to interfere with the said order by the High Court. [Paras 12 and 31) (802-F; 810-G-H; 811-A] 2.1. Punishment is the sanction imposed on the offender for the ~ infringement oflaw committed by him. Once a person is tried for B commission of an offence and found guilty by a competent court, it is the duty of the court to impose on him such sentence as is prescribed by law. The award of sentence is consequential
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.