STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESHversusBODEM SUNDARA RAO

A                      STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH
                                         \',

                            BODEM SUNDARA RAO

                             SEPTEMBER 22, 1995

B               [AS. ANAND AND K.S. PARlPOORNAN, .1.1.J

         Clin1inal Laiv :

          Indian Penal Code, 1861}-S.376( I )-Rape of minor girl-T!ia/ Cowt
    convicting and sentencing accused to JO years R.1.-High Coiut niaintaining
c   conviction and reducing sentence to 4 yews R.f.-Appea/ by State on ground
    of inadequacy of sentence-Sentence enhanced to 111ininnun presc1ibed under
    s.376(1) i.e. 7 years R.l.

          The respondent was charged with rape of a girl of 13-14 years of age
D in broad day light. He was tried and convicted for an offence under SJ76
    IPC. The Trial Court imposed the sentence of' ten years R.I. on him.
                                                                                     •
          On appeal, the High Court maintained the conviction but reduced
    the sentence to four years R.I.

E         The Stale preferred the present appeal complaining about the inade-
    11uacy of the sentence Imposed. It was submitted that in any event the
    sentence should not have been less than the minimum prescribed under
    S.376(1) IPC (aller amendment).

          Allowing the appeal, this Court
F
          HELD : 1.1. In recent years, the crime against women are on the rise.
    These crimes are affront to the human dignity of the society. Imposition
    of grossly inadequate sentence and particularly against the mandate of the
    Legislature not only causes injustice to the victim of the crime in particular
    and the society as a \Vhole in general but also at times encourages a
G   criminal. The Courts have an obligation while a\\larding punishment to
    in1pose appropriate punishment so as to respond to the society's cry for
    justice against such crin1inals. Public abhorence of the crime needs a '
    rellection through the court's verdict in the measure of punishment. The
    Courts must not only keep in view the rights of the criminal but also the
H   rights of the victim of crime and the society at large \\'hile considering
                                          48
                       STATE v. BODEM SUNDARARAO                              49

    in1position of the appropriate punishment. The heinous crime of' con1mit-       A
    ting rape on a helpless 13/14 years old girl shakes our judicial conscit'nce.
    The otfence \\'as inhun1ane. There are no extenuating or mitigating cir·
    cumstances available on the record which nuiy justify imposition of sen-
    tence less than the minimmh prescribed by the Legislature under Section
    376(1) of the Act. [51-G-H, 52-A]
                                                                                    B
          1.2. The High Court was clearly in error in reducing the sentence
    imposed upon the respondent and that too without assigning any reasons,
    much less special and adequate reasons. The High Court appears to have
    overlooked the mandate of the Legislature as reflected in Section 376 (I)
    IPC. [51-B]                                                                     C
          13. To show mercy in the case of such a heinous crime would be
    travesity of justice and the plea for leniency is wholly misplaced. [51-F]

          1.4. While maintaining the conviction of the respondent for the
    offence under Section 376 Indian Penal Code, the sentence of 4 years' RI        D
    is enhanced to 7 years' RI, which is the minimum prescribed sentence
•   under the Section, for there are no adec1uate or special reasons to impose
    a sentence less than the prescribed minimum. [52-C]

         CRIMINAL APPELLATE .JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No.
    1143 of 1995.
                                                                                    E

         From the Judgment and Order dated 23.9.87 of the Andhra Pradesh
    High Court in Crl. A. No. 285 of 1986.

          Guntur Prabhakar for the Appellant
                                                                                    F
          Suresh C. Gupta for the Respondent.

          The following Order of the Court was delivered :

          Leave granted.
                                                                                    G
          On 16.2.1985 the prosecutrix PW2, aged between 13-14 years was
    sexually assaulted by the respondent in broadday light. The proseculrix was
    carrying lunch for her fathCr, ,Vho \Vas grazing cattle in the fields when the
    respondent all of a sudden caught hold of her and committed rape on her
    despite her protestations. The prosecutrix, who \Vas bleeding profusely H
    50                       SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1995] SUPP. 4 S.C.R.

A   from her vagina on account of the rape committed by the respondent,
    reported the incident to her father, PW-3 and to her mother PW-4. The
    First Information Report was thereafter lodged with the police. The
    prosecutrix was medically examined and the doctor opined that she had
    been subjected to rape. The respondent was sent up for trial under Section
    376 Indian Penal Code. The Trial Court after appraising the evidence on
B   the record found the respondent guilty of an offence under Section 376
    Indian Penal Code vide judgment dated 7th February, 1986 and imposed
    the sentence of ten years rigorous imprisonment on him. The respondent
    filed an appeal in the High Court against his conviction and sentence.
    While maintaining the conviction of the respondent, the High Court,
c   however reduced the sentence to a period of four years. While reducing
    the sentence the High Court merely observed :
             11
              Ho\vever, sentence of 10 years, which is on a higher side, is
             reduced to 4 years R.J. With this modification the appeal 1s
             dismissed. 11
D
          The State has come in appeal by Special leave complaining about the
    inadequacy of the sentence imposed upon the respondent by the High              •
    Court. It is submitted that the High Court was not at all justified in
    reducing the sentence and that in any event should not have imposed any
E   sentence less than the prescribed minimum under Section 376(1) !PC (after
    amendment). Despite service the respondent chose not lo appear before
    us. We, therefore, directed the appointment of an amicus curiae to repre-
    sent him.

           We have heard learned counsel for the parties.
F
           From the evidence of the prosecutrix and her parents and the medi-
     cal evidence, it stands established that the respondent committed rape on
     her and therefore his conviction is well recorded. Prosecution evidence is
     cogent, reliable and trustworthy. We, therefore, find that the conviction of
G    the respondent as recorded by the Trial Court and upheld by the High
     Court is well founded.

            After it amendment, Section 376(1) provides for a minimum sentence
     of seven years which may extend to life or for a term which may extend to
     10 years besides fine for the offence of rape. The proviso to Sub-Section
H    (1) lays that the Court may for adequate and special reasons to be recorded
                    STATE v. BO DEM SUND ARA RAO                           51

in the judgment, impose a sentence of imprisonment for a term of less than       A
seven years.

      Keeping in view the nature of the offence and the helpless condition
in which the prosecutrix a young girl of 13/14 years was placed, the High
Court was clearly in error in reducing the sentence imposed upon the
                                                                                 B
respondent and that too without assigning any reasons, much less special
and adequate reasons. The High Court appears to have overlooked the
mandate of the Legislature as reflected in Section 376(1) !PC.

       The learned amicus curiae appearing for the respondent, however,
submitted that since the High Court had reduced the sentence to four years       c
vide its judgment dated 23rd September, 1987, the respondent would have
completed the sentence of imprisonment about five years ago and he may
not, at this stage, be sent back to jail. Learned counsel further submitted
that before the Trial Court the respondent had submitted that he was a
young man and his parents were dependent upon him while seeking                  D
leniency in the matter of sentence. The Trial Court, as already noticed,
having regard to the circumstances of the case and the nature of the
offence, held that the respondent deserved a deterrent sentence and,
according1y, sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period
of 10 years. Of course, the respondent would have undergone the sentence
imposed by the High Court in 1990 itself but that is hardly a _justification     E
for us to ignore the gravity of the offence or the mandate of the law. There
are no adequate and special reasons available on t_he record _justifying
reduction of sentence. To show mercy in the case of such a henious crime
would be travesity of justice and the plea for leniency is wholly misplaced.
                                                                                 F
      In recent years, we have noticed that crime against women are on
the rise. These crimes are affront to the human dignity of the society.
Imposition of grossly inadequate sentence and particularly against the
mandate of the Legislature not only is an injustice to the victim of the crime
in particular and the society as a whole in general but also at times            G
encourages a criminal. The Courts have an obligation while awarding
punishment to impose appropriate punishment so as to respond to the
society's cry for justice against such criminals. Public abhorence of the
crime needs a reflection through the court's verdict in the measure of
punishment. The Courts must not only keep in view the rights of the
criminal but also the rights of the victim of crime and the society at large H
    52                   SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1995] SUPP. 4 S.C.R.

A while considering imposition of the appropriate punishment. The henious
    crime of committing rape on a helpless 13/14 years old girl shakes our
    judicial conscience. The offence was inhumane. There are no extenuating
    or mitigating circumstances available on the record which may justify
    imposition of sentence less than the minimum prescribed by the Legislature
    under Section 376 (1) of the Act.
B
          We, thus, consider it our plain duty to enhance the sentence in this
    case. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of this case and the
    submissions made by the learned amicus curiae, while maintaining the
    conviction of the respondent for the offence under Section 376 Indian
c   Penal Code, we enhance the sentence of 4 years' RI to 7 years' RI, which
    is the minimum prescribed sentence under the Section, for we find no
    adequate or special reasons to impose a sentence less than the prescribed
    minimum. Necessary warrants shall be issued to take the respondent into
    custody to undergo the remaining period of sentence.

    G.N.                                                      Appeal allowed.