LexSTATE OF MADHYA PRADESH versus SANTOSH KUMAR
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B c STA TE OF MAD HY A PRADESH v. SANTOSH KUMAR JULY 14, 2006 [ARJJJTPASAYAT AND LOKESHWARSINGH PANTA,JJ.] Penal Code, 1860; Ss. 342, 375 and 376 with Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, 1983: Rape of a minor-Trial Court found accused guilty of offences under Sections 342, 376(2)(/) and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 10 years-High Court reducing sentence to 5 years-On appeal, Held: Law frowns upon acts constituting rape and provides for more stringent sentence to accused-Protection of society by stamping out criminal proclivity D must he the object of law which could be acknowledged by imposing appropriate sentence-Sentencing process must be stern where it should be tempered with mercy where it warrants to be-It is the duty of the Court to award proper sentence having regard to the nature of the offence and the manner in which it was committed-Proportion between crime and punishment is a goal respected in principle and follows in determining sentences- £ Disproportionate punishment has some very undesirable practical consequences-Aggravating and mitigating factors need to be delicately balanced in terms of relevant circumstances in a dispassionate manner by the Court-In terms of provisions of Section 376, though the Court has discretion to impose sentence less than prescribed by assigning adequate and special F reasons, High Court has failed to indicate such reasons-Besides, provisions of law under Section 376(2) provide for more stringent punishment to accused when the victim is under 12 years of age-The High Court erred in reducing the sentence since it failed to record any special and adequate reasons therefor-Sentencing. G The question which arose for determination in this appeal before this H Court was as to whether the High Court was right in reducing the sentence of rigorous imprisonment against the accused of rape of a minor without assigning any special reasons thereof. 548 STA TE OF MAD HY A PRADESH v. SANTOS!-! KUMAR 549 Allowing the appeal, the Court HELD: I.I. Sections 375 and 376 IPC have been substantially changed by Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, 1983, and several new sections were introduced by the new Act. The fact that sweeping changes were introduced reflects the legislative intent to curb with iron hand, the offence of rape which A affects the dignity of a woman.1552-E-FI B Criminal law (Ninth Edition) by Stephen and Halsbury's Statutes of England and Wales (Fourth Edition) Volume 12, referred to. 1.2. When a woman is ravished, what is inflicted is not merely physical injury but the deep sense of some deathless shame. The offender robs the C victim of her most valuable and priceless possession that is dignity. 1553-B-CI 2.1. Undoubtedly, there is a cross cultural conflict where living law must find answer to the new challenges and the courts are required to mould the D sentencing system to meet the challenges. The contagion of lawlessness would undermine social order and lay it in ruins. Protection of society and stamping out criminal proclivity must be the object oflaw. 1553-D-El "law in Changing Society" by Friedman, referred to. 2.2. By deft.modulation sentencing process be stern where it should be, E 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 the accused, the nature of weapons used and all other attending circumstances are relevant facts which would enter into the area of F consideration. [553-F-Gl Mahesh v. State of MP., [19871 2 SCR 710, relied on. 2.3. Undue sympathy to impose inadequate sentence would do more harm to the justice system to undermine the public confidence in the efficacy of G law and society could not long endure under such serious 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. 1554-B-CI Sevaka Perumal etc. v. State of Tamil Nadu, AIR (1991) SC 1463, relied on. H 550 SUPREME COURT REPORTS 12006] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. A 2.4. 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, presumably to
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.