NEWSLINKS
US EDITION
COLUMNISTS
DIARY
SPECIALS
INTERVIEWS
CAPITAL BUZZ
REDIFF POLL
DEAR REDIFF
THE STATES
YEH HAI INDIA!
ELECTION 99
ELECTIONS
ARCHIVES

Search Rediff

SC flays HC for slashing rapist's term

The Supreme Court has slammed the Karnataka high court for reducing a 10-year rigorous imprisonment sentence imposed by a trial court on a rapist to four years.

"The approach of the high court in this case, to say the least, was most casual and inappropriate. There are no reasons given by the high court to reduce the sentence, let alone any special or adequate reasons," observed a three-judge bench, headed by Chief Justice A S Anand.

The bench further observed, "The high court exhibited lack of sensitivity towards the rape victim and the society by reducing the substantive sentence in the established facts and circumstances of the case. 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 such offences."

The other judges on the bench were Justices R C Lahati and S N Variava.

The sessions judge, after a critical examination of evidence on Record, found that Krishnappa, the 49-year-old accused, had in the first place misbehaved with the mother of an eight-year-old before raping the girl on May 5, 1991.

The trial court had also found that the accused used to misbehave and create trouble under the influence of liquor quite often in the village.

The trial court observed that the prosecution had successfully established that the accused had committed various offences alleged against him and thus convicted and sentenced him to 10 years' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs 3,000.

Criticising the verdict of the high court, the apex court judges said, "A socially sensitised judge, in our opinion, is a better statutory armour in cases of crimes against women than long clauses of the penal provisions, containing complex exceptions and provisions."

In the present case, the bench pointed, the trial court gave sufficient and cogent reasons for imposing the sentence of 10 years' RI.

"These reasons have impressed us. The trial court was rightly influenced by the fact that the accused was a married man of 49 years of age having his own children and the victim of his sexual lust was an innocent helpless girl of seven to eight years of age," the judges added.

The high court, the judges said, in the facts and circumstances of the case, was not justified in interfering with the discretion exercised by the trial court.

"We, therefore, accept this appeal and consider it our plain duty to enhance the sentence in this case. While maintaining the conviction of the accused for an offence under section 376 IPC, besides all other offences, we enhance the sentence of four years' RI, as imposed by the high court, to 10 years' RI for the said offence.

"We maintain the sentence of fine together with the default clause as imposed by the trial court also. Necessary warrants shall be issued to take the accused into custody to undergo the remaining period of sentence," the bench observed in its 12-page judgment.

UNI

Back to top

Tell us what you think of this report