LexSTATE OF RAJASTHAN versus VINOD KUMAR
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2012] 6 S.C.R. 1 STATE OF RAJASTHAN v. VINOD KUMAR (Criminal Appeal No.1887 of 2008) MAY 18, 2012 [DR. B.S. CHAUHAN AND DIPAK MISRA, JJ.] PENAL CODE, 1860: A B ss. 376 and 37611208 - Minimum prescribed sentence - c Conviction and sentence of 7 yeas of RI awarded by trial court to both the accused - High Court reducing the sentence to 5 years in case of main accused and to the period already undergone (11 months and 25 days) in case of co-accused - Held: In the instant case, the accused pleaded only for 0 reduction of punishment, but the Public Prosecutor vehemently opposed the prayer - Though the High Court further took note that awarding punishment lesser than the minimum sentence of 7 years was permissible only for adequate and special reasons, no such reasons have been recorded by it for doing so, and, thus, the High court failed to E ensure compliance of the mandatory requirement - Such an order is violative of the mandatory requirement of law and has defeated the legislative mandate - In the facts and circumstances of the case, sentences awarded by the High Court set aside and seven years R. I. awarded by the trial court F restored. s.376(1 ), proviso - Sentence less than the minimum - For "adeqµate and special reasons" - Held: The statutory requirement for awarding the punishment less than seven G years is to record adequate and special reasons in writing - In a case like the instant one, in order to impose the punishment lesser than that prescribed in the statute, there must be exceptional reasons relating to the crime as well as 1 H 2 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2012] 6 S.C.R. A to the criminal - In the context of sentencing process, special reasons must be 'special' to the accused in the facts and circumstances of the case in which the sentence is being awarded. B /NTERPRETA TION OF STATUTES: Exception clause - Interpretation of - Proviso to s.376 /PC - Held: Exception clause is always required to be strictly interpreted even if there is a hardship to any individual - The natural presumption in law is that but for the proviso, the C enacting part of the Section would have included the subject matter of the proviso, the enacting part should be generally given such a construction which would make the exceptions carved out by the proviso necessary and a construction which would make the exceptions unnecessary and redundant D should be avoided - The power under the proviso is not to be used indiscriminately in a routine, casual ar,d cavalier manner for the reason that an exception clause requires strict interpretation - The court while exercising the discretion in the exception clause has to record "exceptional reasons" for E resorting to the proviso - Recording of such reasons is sine qua non for granting the extraordinary relief - What is adequate and special would depend upon several factors and no straight jacket formula can be laid down. F SENTENCE/SENTENCING Punishment uls 376 /PC - Held: The law on the issue can be summarised to the effect that punishment should always be proportionate/commensurate to the gravity of offence - G Religion, race, caste, economic or social status of the accused or victim are not the relevant factors for determining the quantum of punishment - The court has to decide the punishment after considering all aggravating and mitigating factors and the circumstances in which the crime has been H committed - Conduct and state of mind of the accused and STATE OF RAJASTHAN v. VINOD KUMAR 3 age of the sexually assaulted victim and the gravity of the A cn·minal act are the factors of paramount importance - The court must exercise its discretion in imposing the punishment objectively considering the facts and circumstances of the case - The legislature introduced the imposition of minimum sentence by amendment in the /PC w.e.f. 25.12.1983, B therefore, the courts are bound to bear in mind the effect thereof Meet Singh v. The State of Punjab, 1980 (2) SCR 1152 =AIR 1980 SC 1141; Madhukar Bhaskarrao Joshi v. State C of Maharashtra, 2000 (4) Suppl. SCR 475 = AIR 2001 SC 147; State of Jammu & Kashmir v. Vinay Nanda, 2001(1) SCR 399 =AIR 2001 SC 611; State of Karnataka v. Raju, 2007 (9) SCR 970 = AIR 2007 SC 3225; State of Madhya Pradesh v. Babbu Barkare @ Dalap Singh, 2005 (1) Suppl. 0 SCR 381 = AIR 2005 SC 2846; Dinesh @ Buddha v. State of Rajasthan, 2006 (2) SCR 793 = AIR 2006 SC 1267; Shailesh Jasvan
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.