1. Leave granted.
2. Feeling aggrieved by the judgment rendered by the Karnataka High Court in criminal appeal No. 14 of 1996 further reducing the sentence imposed on the accused, respondent herein, the State of Karnataka has filed this appeal assailing the said judgment.
3. On the first information report lodged by the prosecutrix PW-1, the respondent was tried for the charge of rape punishable under Section 376, Indian Penal Code. The trial court on appreciation of the evidence on record, held the accused guilty of the charge of rape and convicted him therefore. Considering the question of appropriate sentence to be imposed, the trial court observed, "therefore, taking into consideration all these aspects, I feel that it is a fit case for sentencing the accused to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and this in my view would meet the ends of justice. The accused is sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years for the offence under Section 376 of IPC. The bail bond of the accused stands cancelled."
4. The accused challenged the judgment before the High Court in appeal. The High Court on a fresh assessment of the evidence on record held that the finding of conviction by the learned sessions judge appears to be just and proper and needs no interference.
5. Regarding the sentence imposed by the trial court, the High Court considered the prayer of the counsel appearing for the accused for leniency and held : "Taking into consideration the length of time of 11 years after the incident and the pendency of the case before one forum or the other and the young age of the accused and also the Damocles sword of going to jail was always hanging on his head, ends of justice would be met if the sentence of rigorous imprisonment of two years is reduced and at the same time, the appellant is sentenced with fine which in turn can be paid to the victim as compensation under section 357 Cr. P. C.
In the result, the judgment of conviction for the offence under Section 376 IPC passed by the trial court is affirmed. However, the sentence of rigorous imprisonment for two years is modified and the appellant is sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months with a fine of Rs. 5,000/- in default to undergo simple imprisonment for a further period of three months. If the fine amount is deposited, the same shall be paid to PW-1 as compensation under Section 357 Cr. P.C.
With the above modification to the sentence, this appeal stands dismissed."
6. Against the sentence imposed by the High Court, the state has filed this appeal.
7. The question that arises for consideration is whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the High Court was right in reducing the sentence to six months and fine.
8. The prosecution case which was accepted by the courts below was that the prosecutrix, aged 19 years was a polio affected person and was unable to move normally. The accused, who was a relation of the family had free access to the house. He committed the rape when the prosecutrix was alone in the house, her parents having gone out.
9. The imposition of sentence in cases involving offences against women has engaged the attention of this Court from time to time. In the case of State of Karnataka v. Krishnappa , a three judge bench of this Court took note of the observations made in State of Andhra Pradesh v. Bodem Sundara Rao which read as follows:
"14. In State of A.P v. Bodem Sundara Rao while dealing with a case of reduction of sentence from 10 years' Rl to 4 years' Rl by the High Court in the case of rape of a girl aged between 13 and 14 years, it was observed :
"9. In recent years, we have noticed that crime against women are on the rise. These crimes are an 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 cry 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 heinous crime of committing rape on a helpless 13/14 years old girl shakes our judicial conscience. The offence was inhumane." (emphasis supplied) The sentence was accordingly enhanced to 7 years' Rl in the said case.
15. 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. Dealing with the offence of rape and its traumatic effect on a rape victim, this Court in State of Punjab v. Gurmit Singh observed.
"21. Of late, crime against women in general and rape in particular is on the increase. It is an irony that while we are celebrating women's right in all spheres, we show little or no concern for her honour. It is a sad reflection on the attitude of indifference of the society towards the violation of human dignity of the victims of sex crimes. 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. The courts, therefore, shoulder a great responsibility while trying an accused on charges of rape. They must deal with such cases with utmost sensitivity."
10. Adverting to the facts of the case before it; this Court took note of the observation of the High Court that the accused -respondent was an unsophisticated and illiterate person belonging to a weaker section of the society; that he was an unsophisticated and illiterate citizen and committed rape while in the state of intoxica-. tion and that he has an old mother, wife and children who were dependent upon him and observed that these factors did not justify recourse to the proviso to Section 376(2) IPC to impose a sentence less than prescribed in the order.
11. The case in hand is not one of the types coming under Section 376(2) IPC. So, similar provision prescribing minimum period of imprisonment of seven years have been made under Section 376(1) with a rider as proviso vesting discretion in the court to impose sentence of imprisonment with a term less than 7 years for "adequate and sufficient reasons to be mentioned in the judgment." As noted earlier, the trial court considering the circumstances that the accused was a poor agriculturist having a family of wife and two children, had passed the order sentencing him to two years rigorous imprisonment instead of the minimum sentence of seven years. The state had not challenged the said order of sentence. The High Court, on similar consideration, again reduced the sentence from two years to six months which, in our view not only goes against the statutory mandate in Section 376(1) IPC but is also not based on proper consideration of the question of the appropriate sentence to be fixed in the facts and circumstances of the case. The importance of the order of sentence in a criminal case cannot be over emphasized.
In a case where the legislative policy is clear from the statutory provision prescribing a mini-mum period of imprisonment and the discretion to further reduction of the same giving adequate and special reasons, the High Court should not have further reduced the sentence merely reiterating the factors which had been considered by the trial court in imposing the reduced sentence of two years. The judgment of the High Court under challenge is clearly unsustainable.
12. Accordingly the appeal is allowed, the judgment of the High Court is set aside and judgment passed by the trial court is restored.