Admittedly the appellants have already undergone,
about 3 and = years imprisonment each. The incident is
14 years old. The appellants and the prosecutrix are
married (not to each other). The prosecutrix has also
two children. An application and affidavit has been
filed before us stating that the parties want to finish
the dispute, have entered into a compromise on
01.09.2007, and that the accused may be acquitted and
now there is no misunderstanding between them.
Section 376 is a non compoundable offence,
However, the fact that the incident is an old one, is a
circumstance for invoking the proviso to Section 376 (2)
(g) and awarding a sentence less than 10 years, which is
ordinarily the minimum sentence under that provision, as
we think that there are adequate and special reasons for
doing so.
Reportable
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 749 OF 2007
BALDEV SINGH & ORS. ......Appellant (s)
Versus
STATE OF PUNJAB .....Respondent (s)
O R D E R
This appeal has been filed against the impugned
judgment dated 27.0.2005 IN CRLA No. 242 of 1999 of the
High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh.
The facts of the case have been set out in the
judgment of the High Court and hence we are not
repeating the same here, except where necessary.
The prosecution case is that on 03.03.1997 at
about 6.30 A.M. the prosecutrix was coming to her house
after answering the call of nature. The three appellants
caught her and took her into a house and raped her and
beat her. After police investigation the appellants
were charge sheeted, and after a trial were convicted
under Section 376 (2) (g) and Section 342 I.P.C. and
sentenced to 10 years R.I. and to pay a fine of Rs.
1,000/- each. The sentence was upheld by the High
Court, and hence this appeal.
Admittedly the appellants have already undergone,
about 3 and = years imprisonment each. The incident is
14 years old. The appellants and the prosecutrix are
married (not to each other). The prosecutrix has also
-1-
-2-
two children. An application and affidavit has been
filed before us stating that the parties want to finish
the dispute, have entered into a compromise on
01.09.2007, and that the accused may be acquitted and
now there is no misunderstanding between them.
Section 376 is a non compoundable offence,
However, the fact that the incident is an old one, is a
circumstance for invoking the proviso to Section 376 (2)
(g) and awarding a sentence less than 10 years, which is
ordinarily the minimum sentence under that provision, as
we think that there are adequate and special reasons for
doing so.
On the facts of the case, considering that the
incident happened in the year 1997 and that the parties
have themselves entered into a compromise, we uphold the
conviction of the appellant but we reduce the sentence
to the period of sentence already undergone in view of
the proviso to Section 376 (2) (g) which for adequate
and special reasons permits imposition of a lesser
sentence. However, we direct that each of the appellant
will pay a sum of Rupees 50,000/- by way of enhancement
of fine to the victim envisaged under Section 376 of the
IPC itself. The fine shall be paid within three months
from today. In the event of failure to pay the enhanced
amount of fine it will be recovered as arrears of land
revenue and will be given to the victim.
-3-
The appeal is disposed off.
...................J.
[MARKANDEY KATJU]
...................J.
[GYAN SHDHA MISRA]
NEW DELHI;
FEBRUARY 22, 2011
