http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 3  

PETITIONER: STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: BODEM SUNDARA RAO

DATE OF JUDGMENT22/09/1995

BENCH: ANAND, A.S. (J) BENCH: ANAND, A.S. (J) PARIPOORNAN, K.S.(J)

CITATION:  1996 AIR  530            1995 SCC  (6) 230  JT 1995 (7)    90        1995 SCALE  (5)554

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT:                          O R D E R      Leave granted.      On 16.2.1985  the prosecutrix,  PW2, aged between 13-14 years was  sexually assaulted  by the respondent in broadday light. The  prosecutrix was  carrying lunch  for her father, who was grazing cattle in the fields when the respondent all of a  sudden caught  hold of  her and committed rape on hear despite her protestations. The prosecutrix, who was bleeding profusely 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  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,  however,  reduced  the sentence to  a period  of four  years.  While  reducing  the sentence the High Court merely observed :      " However,  sentence of  10 years, which      is on  a higher  side, is  reduced to  4      years R.I.  with this  modification  the      appeal is dismissed."      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 sentence less  than the  prescribed  minimum  under  Section 376(1) IPC (after amendment). Despite service the respondent

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 3  

chose not  to appear  before us. We, therefore, directed the appointment of an amicus curiae to represent him. We have heard learned counsel for the parties.      From the  evidence of  the prosecutrix  and her parents and the  medical 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  the respondent as recorded by the Trial Court and upheld by the High Court is well founded.      After is  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 (1) lays that the Court  may  for  adequate  and  special  reasons  to  be recorded in  the judgment, impose a sentence of imprisonment for a term of less than 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 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) IPC.      The learned amicus curiae appearing for the respondent, however, submitted that since the High Court had reduced the sentence  to   four  years  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 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, accordingly, 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 for us  to ignore  the gravity of the offence or the mandate of the  law. There  are  no  adequate  and  special  reasons available on the record justifying reduction of sentence. To show mercy  in the  case of  such a  henious crime  would be traversity of  justice and  the plea  for leniency is wholly misplaced.      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 encourages a criminal. The Courts have an obligation while  awarding punishment  to impose appropriate punishment so  as to  respond to  the  society’s  crime  for justice against  such criminals.  Public abhorrence  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  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  of mitigating circumstances available on the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 3  

record which  may justify  imposition of  sentence less than the minimum  prescribed by  the  Legislature  under  Section 376(1) of the Act.      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 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.