STATE OF RAJASTHAN versus KISHAN LAL

Citation: [2002] 3 S.C.R. 1066 · Decided: 10-05-2002 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: Y.K. SABHARWAL · Disposal: Disposed off

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
STATE OF RAJASTHAN 
v. 
KJSHAN LAL 
MAYI0,2002 
B 
[Y.K. SABHARWAL AND BISHESHWAR PRASAD SINGH, JJ.] 
Penal Code, 1860 : 
Secti~n 376-Rape-Conviction of accused by Trial Court-Reduction 
C of sentence by the High Court-On appeal, Held: Since High Court has not 
recorded any adequate or special reason for reducing sentence, the order of 
the High Court not justified 
Rape-Prosecution version-Truthfu/lness-ln doubt-Raising the 
probabi!itf' that the prosecutrix was a consenting party-Hence respondent 
D entitled to benefit of doubt and thus acuqitted. 
Code of Criminal Procedure, 197 3: 
Section 373(3)-Applicability of-Appeal under Article 136 of the 
Constitution on the ground of inadequacy of the sentence-Plea of acquittal-
E Raising of-Held, Supreme Court for the purpose of averting miscarriage of 
justice, could adopt such analogous principles so as to make fair procedure 
for disposing of such appeals and may allow respondent to raise such plea-
Constitution of India; Article, 136. 
F 
According to the prosecution, on the fateful day, prosecutrix's 
husband and brother~in-law had gone away and she was alone in the 
house; her sister-in-law was sleeping in a nearby house. At night, when 
the accused came to her house, she recognised him, and accused raped 
her. In the meanwhile her husband and brother-in-law returned home to 
whom she narrated the story. The accused tried to run away but her 
G husband, brother-in-law and villagers caught him and kept him tied in 
the house and handed him over to Police. The prosecutrix lodged FIR 
next morning. Respondent-accused was charged and tried for offences 
under Sections 376 and 457 l.P.C. Trial Court found the respondent-
accused guilty of the charges and sentenced him to rigorous imprisonment 
for 7 years and I year respectively and also to pay fine. On appeal, High 
H 
1066 
... 
-
STATE v. KISHAN LAL 
1067 
Court reduced the sentence to the period already undergone by the A 
accused. Hence this appeal by the State. 
It was contended for the appellant-State thai High Court erred in 
law in reducing the sentence to the period already undergone by the 
accused which was not permissible in view of the express provisions of 
Section 376 l.P.C.; that Section 377 of the Code of Criminal Procedure B 
does not apply to an appeal before the Supreme Court under Article 136 
of the Constitution of India; and that prosecutrix was not a consenting 
party to the rape. 
• 
It was contended for the respondent-accused that Supreme Court, 
in exercise of its extra ordinary jurisdiction under Article 136 of the 
Constitution of India, may apply the principle analogous to those enshrined 
in Section 377 Cr.P.C. 
Disposing of the appeal, the Court 
c 
HELD : I. Proviso to Section 376 IPC provides that the Court may, D 
for adequate and special reasons to be mentioned in the judgment, impose 
a sentence of imprisonment for a term of less than seven years. In the 
instant case, the High Court has not recorded adequate or special reasons 
for reducing the sentence to the period already undergone except for 
stating that the respondent had remained in custody since the year 1988 E 
and that in such cases Courts have taken a lenient vie\V. Such a statement 
does not answer the description of adequate and special reasons which 
\Vere required to be mentioned in the judgment. It is, therefore, patent 
that the order reducing the sentence of the respondent is illegal and 
cannot be sustained. f1070-D, E, Ff 
2. It is no doubt true that the State has preferred the appeal 
challenging the legality of the sentence. In that sense it is not an appeal 
for enhancement of sentence on the ground of its inadequacy. However, 
F 
it is equally true that if the sentence is found to be illegal and set aside 
and appropriate sentence imposed, it would result in the enhancement of G 
the sentence. The only consequence of the State appeal being allowed 
would be to enhance the sentence and, therefore, the appeal in effect is 
for Cnhancement of the sentence of the respondent on the ground that the 
sentence imposed against him is not in accordance with la\v, and not 
adequate, since it is less than the minirnum sentence prescribed under the 
law. f 1071-B, C, Of 
H 
1068 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2002] 3 S.C.R. 
A 
3. The question which arises for consideration is whether this Court 
should apply the principles enshrined in Section 377(3) of the Code of 
J.._ ' 
Criminal Procedure to an appeal filed under Artic

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