STATE OF RAJASTHAN versus MADAN SINGH

Citation: [2008] 2 S.C.R. 275 · Decided: 01-02-2008 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARIJIT PASAYAT · Disposal: Case Allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

-i-
[2008] 2 S.C.R. 275 
l .. 
~_,. 
STATE OF RAJASTHAN 
A 
II. 
MADAN SINGH 
(Criminal Appeal No. 234 of 2008) 
FEBRUARY 1, 2008 
B 
[DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND P. SATHASIVAM, JJ.] 
,.~ 
Penal Code, 1860 - s. 376 (2)(f) - Rape of a minor girl -
High Court altered the sentence from 1 O years to 7 years for 
offence uls 376(2)(f) - Propriety of- Held: Sentence less than c 
minimum provided can be awarded when there are adequate 
and speciar reasons - On facts, there were no extenuating or 
mitigating circumstances justifying imposition of any sentence 
less than the prescribed minimum - Thus, order of High Court 
not sustainable and set aside - Sentence/Sentencing. 
D 
Sentence/Sentencing - Rape case - Award of sentence 
..,.._. 
- General guidelines - Explained . 
The respondent allegedly committed rape on a minor 
girl aged 10 years. The trial court convicted the E 
respondent-accused under section 376 (2){f) and imposed 
10 years imprisonment. However, the High Court on 
considering the facts that the accused suffered custodial 
sentence of about 6 years and he being the only bread 
earner of the family with two kids and being young, 
F 
-_._ 
reduced the sentence from 10 years to 7 years. Hence 
the present appeal. 
Allowing the appeal, the court 
HELD: 1.1 The measure of punishment in a case of 
rape cannot depend upon the social status of the victim G 
-
---( 
or the accused. It must depend upon the conduct of the 
t 
accused, the state and age of the sexually assaulted 
" 
female and the gravity of the criminal act. Crimes of 
violence upon women need to be severely dealt with. The 
275 
H 
276 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2008] 2 S.C.R. 
A socio-economic status, religion, race, caste or creed of 
the accused or the victim are irrelevant considerations in 
sentencing policy. Protection of society and deterring the 
criminal is the avowed object of law and that is required 
to be achieved by imposing an appropriate sentence. The 
B sentencing Courts are expected to consider all relevant 
facts and circumstances bearing on the question of 
sentence and proceed to impose a sentence 
commensurate with the gravity of the offence. Courts 
must hear the loud cry for justice by the society in cases 
c of the heinous crime of rape on innocent helpless girls of 
tender years, and respond by imposition of proper 
sentence. Public abhorrence of the crime needs reflection 
through imposition of appropriate sentence by the Court. 
[Para 8] [279-B, C, D, E] 
D 
1.2 The legislative mandate to impose a sentence for 
the offence of rape on a girl under 12 years of age, for a 
term which shall not be less than 10 years, but which may 
extend to life and also to fine reflects the intent of 
stringency in sentence. The proviso to Section 376(2) IPC 
E lays down that the court may, for adequate and special 
reasons to be mentioned in the judgment, impose 
sentence of imprisonment of either description for a term 
of less than 10 years. It is a fundamental rule of 
construction that a proviso must be considered with 
F relation to the principal matter to which it stands as a 
proviso particularly in such like penal provisions. The 
courts are obliged to respect the legislative mandate in 
the matter of awarding of sentence in all such cases. 
Recourse to the proviso can be had only for "special and 
G adequate reasons" and not in a casual manner. Whether 
there exist any "special and adequate reasons" would 
depend upon a variety of factors and the peculiar facts 
and circumstances of each case. No hard and fast rule of 
universal application can be laid down in that behalf. 
H [Para 9] [279-G, H; 280-A, B, C] 
,, 
-Y 
.~ 
,L 
---{ 
' 
• 
STATE OF RAJASTHAN v. MADAN SINGH 
277 
[PASAYAT, J.] 
2. There are no extenuating or mitigating A 
circumstances available on the record which may justify 
imposition of any sentence less than the prescribed 
minimum on the respondent. To show mercy in the case 
of such a heinous crime would be a travesty of justice 
and the plea for leniency is wholly misplaced. In view of B 
the aforementioned position in law the judgment of the 
High Court reducing the sentence to 7 years is clearly 
unsustainable and is set aside. [Paras 8 and 1 O] [279-E, F; 
280-D] 
CRIMINALAPPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal C 1 
No. 234 of 2008. 
From the final Judgment dated 28.10.2005 of the High 
Court of Judicature for Rajasthan at Jodhpur in S.8. Crl. J.A. 
No. 581/2001. 
Milind Kumar and Aruneshwar Gupta for the Appellant

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