Important Issue Involved: While imposing sentence on persons convicted of rape, the court must be careful and must not overlook requirement of assigning reasons for imposing sentence below the prescribed minimum sentence
REFERRED TO:
Simbhu and Anr. vs. State of Haryana 2013 (10) SCALE 595.
Jugendra Singh vs. State of Uttar Pradesh (2012) 6 SCC 297.
State of Andhra Pradesh vs. Polamala Raju @ Rajarao (2000) 7 SCC 75.
State of Karnataka vs. Krishnappa (2000) 4 SCC 75.
State of Punjab vs. Gurmit Singh and Ors. AIR 1996 SC 1393.
Bodhisatwa Gautam vs. Subhra Chakraborty 1996 (1) SCC 490.
State of A.P. vs. Bodem Sundara Rao (1995) 6 SCC 230.
Indian Penal Code, 1860—Sec. 376—Sentence— Sentencing for any offence has a social goal—Sentence is to be imposed regard being had to the nature of the offence and the manner in which the offence has been committed—It serves as a deterrent—The principle of proportionality between an offence committed and the penalty imposed are to be kept in view—It is obligatory on the part of the Court to see the impact of the offence on the society as a whole and its ramifications as well as its repercussions on the victim.
Rape is one of the most heinous crimes committed against a woman—It insults womanhood—It dwarfs her personality and reduces her confidence level—It violates her right to life guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
Apex Court in Bodhisatwa Gautam v. Subhra Chakraborty 1996 (1) SCC 490 where it was observed that “rape is violative of the victim’s most cherished of the fundamental rights guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
Rape is an aberrant, atrocious, horrendous and monstrous burial of her dignity in darkness. It is a crime against the entire society. In State of Punjab v. Gurmit Singh and Ors. AIR 1996 SC 1393, Supreme Court observed the effect of rape on a victim with anguish:
“We must remember that a rapist not only violates the victim’s
privacy and personal integrity, but inevitably causes serious
psychological as well as physical harm in the process. Rape is
not merely a physical assault-it is often destructive of the whole
personality of the victim. A murderer destroys the physical body
of his victim, a rapist degrades the very soul of the helpless female.”
In State of Karnataka v. Krishnappa (2000) 4 SCC 75 the High Court had reduced the sentence of ten years rigorous imprisonmentimposed by the trial court on the accused for an offence under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) to four years rigorous imprisonment.
Severely commenting on this indiscretion, Apex Court observed as under:
“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 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 of the heinous
crime of rape on innocent helpless girls of tender years, as in
this case, and respond by imposition of proper sentence. Public
abhorrence of the crime needs reflection through imposition of
appropriate sentence by the court. There are no extenuating or
mitigating 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. The courts are expected to properly operate
the sentencing system and to impose such sentence for a proved
offence, which may serve as a deterrent for the commission of
like offences by others. Sexual violence apart from being a
dehumanising act is an unlawful intrusion of the right to privacy
and sanctity of a female. It is a serious blow to her supreme
honour and offends her self-esteem and dignity – it degrades and
humiliates the victim and where the victim is a helpless innocent
child, it leaves behind a traumatic experience. The courts are,
therefore, expected to deal with cases of sexual crime against
women with utmost sensitivity. Such cases need to be dealt with
sternly and severely. A socially sensitised Judge, in our opinion,
is a better statutory armour in cases of crime against women
than long clauses of penal provisions, containing complex
exceptions and provisos.”
In State of Andhra Pradesh v. Polamala Raju @ Rajarao (2000) 7 SCC 75 a three Judge Bench of the Supreme Court set aside the judgment of the High Court for non-application of mind to the question of sentencing. The Supreme Court reprimanded the High Court for having reduced the sentence of the accused convicted under Section 376, IPC from 10 years imprisonment to 5 years without recording any reasons for the same. The Court said:
“… We are of the considered opinion that it is an obligation of the sentencing Court to consider all relevant facts and circumstances bearing on the question of sentence and impose a sentence commensurate with the gravity of the offence…
In Simbhu and Anr. v. State of Haryana 2013 (10) SCALE 595 a three Judge Bench took a serious view about taking a liberal view while awarding sentence for such a heinous crime by observing as under:-
“This is yet another opportunity to inform the subordinate Courts
and the High Courts that despite stringent provisions for rape
Under Section 376 Indian Penal Code, many Courts in the past
have taken a softer view while awarding sentence for such a
heinous crime. This Court has in the past noticed that few
subordinate and High Courts have reduced the sentence of the
accused to the period already undergone to suffice as the
punishment, by taking aid of the proviso to Section 376(2) Indian
Penal Code. The above trend exhibits stark insensitivity to the
need for proportionate punishments to be imposed in such cases.