STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH versus SHEIKH SHAHID

Citation: [2009] 5 S.C.R. 1038 · Decided: 15-04-2009 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARIJIT PASAYAT · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

[2009] 5 S.C.R. 1038 
A 
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH 
v. 
SHEIKH SHAHID 
(Criminal Appeal No. 660 of 2004) 
B 
APRIL 15, 2009 
[DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, LOKESHWAR SINGH PANTA 
AND P. SATHASIVAM, JJ.] 
PENAL CODE, 1860: 
c 
s.376 - Conviction by trial court - Sentence of 7 years 
imposed - Reduced by High Court to the period already 
undergone which was about six months only- HELD: The only 
reason indicated by the High Court being that accused 
D belonged to rural areas, can neither be considered adequate 
I 
nor special -· Requirement of law is cumulative - Order of 
High Court is clearly unsustainable and is set aside -
Sentencing - Principles explained. 
Respondent no. 1 was convicted by trial court u/s 376 
E IPC and was sentenced to 7 years RI. On appeal, the High 
Court reduced the sentence to the period already 
undergone which was about six months only. 
Allowing the appeal filed by the State Government, 
F the Court 
HELD:1.1. Sections 375 and 376 IPC have been 
substantially changed by Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, 
1983, and several new sections have been introduced by 
G 
the new Act, i.e. ss.376-A, 376- B, 376-C and 376-D. The 
fact that sweeping changes were introduced, reflects the 
legislative intent to curb with iron hand, the offence of 
. rape which affects the dignity of a woman. The offence 
of rape in its simplest term is 'the ravishment of a woman, 
H 
without her consent, by force, fear or fraud'. The physical 
1038 
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH v. SHEIKH SHAHID 1039 
-~ 
scar may heal up, but the mental scar will always remain. 
A 
When a woman is ravished, what is inflicted is not merely 
physical injury but the deep sense of some deathless 
shame. [Para 6 and 7) [1042-G-H; 1043-A-F-G] 
Mahesh v. State of M.P. (1987) 2 SCR 710; Sevaka 
Perumal etc. v. State of Tamil Nadu AIR 1991 SC 1463 and 
B 
Jashubha Bharatsinh Gohil v. State of Gujarat 1994 (4) SCC 
353, referred to. 
Dennis Councle McGautha v. State of California: 402 US 
183: 28 L.D. 2d 711, referred to. 
c 
1.2. 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, 
D 
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 9) [1044-H; 1045-A-B] 
Sevaka Perumal etc. v. State of Tamil Nadu AIR 1991 
E 
SC 1463, relied on. 
1.3. After giving due consideration to the facts and 
circumstances of each case, for deciding just and 
appropriate sentence to be awarded for an offence, the 
F 
aggravating and mitigating factors and circumstances in 
which a crime has been committed are to be delicately 
balanced by the court on the basis of really relevant 
circumstances in a dispassionate manner. Such act of 
balancing is indeed a difficult task. [Para 12) [1046-A-B] 
G 
1.4. Imposition of sentence without considering its 
effect on the social order in many cases may be in reality 
a futile exercise. The social impact of the crime, e.g. where 
it relates to offences against women, and offences of 
H 
1040 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009) 5 S.C.R. 
A dacoity, kidnapping, misappropriation of public money, 
treason and other offences involving moral turpitude or 
moral delinquency which have great impact on social 
order, and public interest, cannot be lost sight of and per 
se require E1xemplary treatment. Any liberal attitude by 
B imposing meager sentences or taking too sympathetic a 
view merely on account of lapse of time in respect of 
such offences will be result-wise counter productive in 
the long run and against societal interest which needs to 
be cared for and strengthened by string of deterrence 
c inbuilt in the sentencing system. [Para 14] [1046-G-H; 
: 
D 
1047-A-B] 
Dhananjoy Chatterjee v. State of W.B. 1994 (2) SCC 
220; Ravji v. State of Rajasthan 1996 (2) SCC 175 and State 
of M.P. v. Ghanshyam Singh 2003 (8) SCC 13, referred to. 
2. In bc>th sub-sections (1) and (2) of s.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 than the prescribed 
E minimum for 'adequate and special reasons.In order to 
exercise the discretion of reducing the sentence the 
statutory requirement is that the court has to record 
"adequate and special reasons" in the judgment and not 
fanci

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