http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2  

CASE NO.: Appeal (crl.)  180 of 2005

PETITIONER: State of Madhya Pradesh                          

RESPONDENT: Rameshwar                                                

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 25/01/2005

BENCH: N Santosh Hegde & S B Sinha

JUDGMENT: J U D G M E N T (Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No.1691/2004)

SANTOSH HEGDE, J.

       Heard learned counsel for the parties.

       Leave granted.

       This is yet another case of gross indiscretion on the part  of the High Court in reducing the sentence imposed by the trial  court in a heinous crime.

       The respondent herein was convicted by the Special and  Second Additional Judge, Chhindwara, Madhya Pradesh, for an  offence punishable under section 366 IPC and was sentenced to  undergo RI for a period of 4 years and to pay a fine of Rs.500/-;  in default of payment of fine to undergo further period of 3  months’ RI. The respondent challenged the said conviction and  sentence before the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur  and the High Court by the impugned order while confirming the  finding of conviction recorded by the Sessions Court for an  offence punishable under section 366 IPC, reduced the sentence  of imprisonment to a period already undergone while  maintaining the sentence of fine.

       The reason recorded by the High Court for reducing the  sentence is that the respondent has already suffered the sentence  of imprisonment for a period of 1 month and 3 days, and that he   at the time of commission of offence was an uneducated  labourer from rural area and was aged 21 years. While doing so,  the High Court did not take into consideration that under the  Act the offence is punishable up to 10 years’ RI and the  Sessions Court while considering the quantum of punishment  had noted that the at the time of kidnapping, the victim was  approximately 16 years of age and that she was seduced and  kidnapped by the respondent by promising her to marry and in  those circumstances after recording reasons that the offence in  question was a serious one in that the appellant had sexually  exploited a young girl of 16 years and thereafter deserted her,  hence awarded the sentence of 4 years’ RI which itself in our  opinion was inadequate.

       Even then the High Court without considering the  gravamen of the offence and the ignominy to which the victim  has been put to with misplaced generosity/sympathy which has  an everlasting adverse effect on her future, has unreasonably  reduced the sentence to a period already undergone which is  one month and 3 days. In our opinion this is a ridiculously low

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

sentence, totally disproportionate to the crime committed by the  respondent.           We notice that the conviction recorded by the Sessions  Court is not challenged by the appellant before the High Court  nor is it challenged before this Court. Therefore, the question of  our going into the validity of the conviction does not arise.   

       For the reasons stated above, we allow this appeal, set  aside the order of the High Court reducing the sentence, and   restore the sentence awarded by the Sessions Court. We direct  the respondent to surrender and serve out the sentence awarded  by the Sessions Court.