1)To show mercy in the case of such a henious crime would be travesty of justice and the plea for

leniency is wholly misplaced. a) 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 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 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 or mitigating circumstances available on the record which may justify imposition of sentence less than the minimum prescribed by the Legislature under Section 376(1) of the Act.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Criminal Appeal No. 1143 of 1995 Decided On: 22.09.1995 Appellants:State of Andhra Pradesh Vs. Respondent: Bodem sundra rao 2) 8. Charge against the Appellant is Under Section 376(2)(g) Indian Penal Code. In order to establish an offence Under Section 376(2)(g)Indian Penal Code, read with Explanation I thereto, the prosecution must adduce evidence to indicate that more than one accused had acted in concert and in such an event, if rape had been committed by even one, all the accused will be guilty irrespective of the fact that she had been raped by one or more of them and it is not necessary for the prosecution to adduce evidence of a completed act of rapeby each one of the accused. In other words, this provision embodies a principle of joint liability and the essence of that liability is the existence of common intention; that common intention presupposes prior concert which may be determined from the conduct of offenders revealed during the course of action and it could arise and be formed suddenly, but, there must be meeting of minds. It is not enough to have

the same intention independently of each of the offenders. In such cases, there must be criminal sharing marking out a certain measure of jointness in the commission of offence. Ashok Kumar v. State of Haryana (supra) s State of Himachal Pradesh v. Asha Ram MANU/SC/1902/2005 : AIR 2006 SC 381, this Court highlighted the importance to be given to the testimony of the prosecutrix as under para 5 It is now well-settled principle of law that conviction can be founded on the testimony of the prosecutrix alone unless there are compelling reasons for seeking corroboration. The evidence of a prosecutrix is more reliable than that of an injured witness. The testimony of the victim of sexual assault is vital, unless there are compelling reasons which necessitate looking for corroboration of her statement, the courts should find no difficulty in acting on the testimony of a victim of sexual assault alone to convict an accused where her testimony inspires confidence and is found to be reliable. It is also a well-settled principle of law that corroboration as a condition for judicial reliance on the testimony of the prosecutrix is not a requirement of law but a guidance of prudence under the given circumstances. The evidence of the prosecutrix is more reliable than that of an injured witness. Even minor contradictions or insignificant discrepancies in the statement of the prosecutrix should not be a ground for throwing out an otherwise reliable prosecution case. 6) ...It is now well-settled principle of law that conviction can be founded on the testimony of the prosecutrix alone unless there are compelling reasons for seeking corroboration. The evidence of a prosecutrix is more reliable than that of an injured witness. The testimony of the victim of sexual assault is vital, unless there are compelling reasons which necessitate looking for corroboration of her statement, the courts should find no difficulty in acting on the testimony of a victim of sexual assault alone to convict an accused where her testimony inspires confidence and is found to be reliable. It is also a well-settled principle of law that corroboration as a condition for judicial reliance on the testimony of the prosecutrix is not a requirement of law but a guidance of prudence under the given circumstances. The evidence of the prosecutrix is more reliable than that of an injured witness. Even minor contradictions or insignificant discrepancies in the statement of the prosecutrix should not be a ground for throwing out an otherwise reliable prosecution case. 7) he object of punishment has been succinctly stated in Halsbury's Laws of England, (4th Edition: Vol. II: para 482) thus: The aims of punishment are now considered to be retribution, justice, deterrence, reformation and protection and modern sentencing policy reflects a combination of several or all of these aims. The retributive element is intended to show public revulsion to the offence and to punish the offender for his wrong conduct. The concept of justice as an

aim of punishment means both that the punishment should fit the offence and also that like offences should receive similar punishments. An increasingly important aspect of punishment is deterrence and sentences are aimed at deterring not only the actual offender from further offences but also potential offenders from breaking the law. The importance of reformation of the offender is shown by the growing emphasis laid upon it by much modern legislation, but judicial opinion towards this particular aim is varied and rehabilitation will not usually be accorded precedence over deterrence. The main aim of punishment in judicial thought, however, is still the protection of society and the other objects frequently receive only secondary consideration when sentences are being decided. (Emphasis supplied)

8 State of Punjab v. Gurmit Singh and Ors. MANU/SC/0366/1996 : AIR 1996 SC 1393, this Court stated with anguish that crime against women in general and rape in particular is on the increase. The learned Judges proceeded further to state that it is an irony that while we are celebrating women's rights in all spheres, we show little or no concern for her honour. It is a sad reflection of the attitude of indifference of the society towards the violation of human dignity of the victims of sex crimes. Thereafter, the Court observed the effect of rape on a victim with anguish: 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. 9) . In State of Karnataka v. Krishnappa MANU/SC/0210/2000 : (2000) 4 SCC 75, a three-Judge Bench opined that the courts must hear the loud cry for justice by the society in cases of the heinous crime of rape on innocent helpless girls of tender years and respond by imposition of proper sentence. Public abhorrence of the crime needs reflection through imposition of appropriate sentence by the court. It was further observed that to show mercy in the case of such a heinous crime would be travesty of justice and the plea for leniency is wholly misplaced 10) . In State of Karnataka v. Krishnappa MANU/SC/0210/2000 : (2000) 4 SCC 75, a three-Judge Bench opined that the courts must hear the loud cry for justice by the society in cases of the heinous crime of rape on innocent helpless girls of tender years and respond by imposition of proper sentence. Public abhorrence of the crime needs reflection through imposition of appropriate sentence by the court. It was

further observed that to show mercy in the case of such a heinous crime would be travesity of justice and plea of leniency is wholly misplaced 11) It is said that one's physical frame is his or her temple. No one has any right of encroachment. An attempt for the momentary pleasure of the accused has caused the death of a child and had a devastating effect on her family and, in the ultimate eventuate, on the collective at large. When a family suffers in such a manner, the society as a whole is compelled to suffer as it creates an incurable dent in the fabric of the social milieu. 12)Jugendra Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh MANU/SC/0485/2012 : (2012) 6 SCC 297, while dwelling upon the gravity of the crime of rape, this Court had expressed thus: : ape or an attempt to rape is a crime not against an individual but a crime which destroys the basic equilibrium of the social atmosphere. The consequential death is more horrendous. It is to be kept in mind that an offence against the body of a woman lowers her dignity and mars her reputation. It is said that one's physical frame is his or her temple. No one has any right of encroachment. An attempt for the momentary pleasure of the accused has caused the death of a child and had a devastating effect on her family and, in the ultimate eventuate, on the collective at large. When a family suffers in such a manner, the society as a whole is compelled to suffer as it creates an incurable dent in the fabric of the social milieu. 13) Keeping in view the aforesaid enunciation of law, the obtaining factual matrix, the brutality reflected in the commission of crime, the response expected from the courts by the society and the rampant uninhibited exposure of the bestial nature of pervert minds, we are required to address whether the rigorous punishment for life imposed on the Appellant is excessive or deserves to be modified. The learned Counsel for the Appellant would submit that the Appellant has four children and if the sentence is maintained, not only his life but also the life of his children would be ruined. The other ground that is urged is the background of impecuniosity. In essence, leniency is sought on the base of aforesaid mitigating factors. It is seemly to note that the legislature, while prescribing a minimum sentence for a term which shall not be less than ten years, has also provided that the sentence may be extended upto life. The legislature, in its wisdom, has left it to the discretion of the Court. Almost for the last three decades, this Court has been expressing its agony and distress pertaining to the increased rate of crimes against women. The eight year old girl, who was supposed to spend time in cheerfulness, was dealt with animal passion and her dignity and purity of physical frame was shattered. The plight of the child and the shock suffered by her can be well visualised. The torment on the child has the potentiality to corrode the poise and equanimity of any civilized society. The age old wise saying "child is a gift of the providence" enters into the realm of absurdity. The young girl, with efflux of time, would grow with

traumatic experience, an unforgettable shame. She shall always be haunted by the memory replete with heavy crush of disaster constantly echoing the chill air of the past forcing her to a state of nightmarish melancholia. She may not be able to assert the honour of a woman for no fault of hers. Respect for reputation of women in the society shows the basic civility of a civilised society. No member of society can afford to conceive the idea that he can create a hollow in the honour of a woman. Such thinking is not only lamentable but also deplorable. It would not be an exaggeration to say that the thought of sullying the physical frame of a woman is the demolition of the accepted civilized norm, i.e., "physical morality". In such a sphere, impetuosity has no room. The youthful excitement has no place. It should be paramount in everyone's mind that, on one hand, the society as a whole cannot preach from the pulpit about social, economic and political equality of the sexes and, on the other, some pervert members of the same society dehumanize the woman by attacking her body and ruining her chastity. It is an assault on the individuality and inherent dignity of a woman with the mindset that she should be elegantly servile to men. Rape is a monstrous burial of her dignity in the darkness. It is a crime against the holy body of a woman and the soul of the society and such a crime is aggravated by the manner in which it has been committed. We have emphasised on the manner because, in the present case, the victim is an eight year old girl who possibly would be deprived of the dreams of "Spring of Life" and might be psychologically compelled to remain in the "Torment of Winter". When she suffers, the collective at large also suffers. Such a singular crime creates an atmosphere of fear which is historically abhorred by the society. It demands just punishment from the court and to such a demand, the courts of law are bound to respond within legal parameters. It is a demand for justice and the award of punishment has to be in consonance with the legislative command and the discretion vested in the court. The mitigating factors put forth by the learned Counsel for the Appellant are meant to invite mercy but we are disposed to think that the factual matrix cannot allow the rainbow of mercy to magistrate. Our judicial discretion impels us to maintain the sentence of rigorous imprisonment for life and, hence, we sustain the judgment of conviction and the order of sentence passed by the High Court. Ex consequenti, the appeal, being sans merit, stands dismissed. 14) Sirivalla Srinivasa Rao and Ors. Vs. Respondent: State of A.P. Criminal - Conviction - Offence committed punishable under Section 376 (2g) and 323 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Held, there was some delay in lodging of the FIR this can be over looked - A victim of gang rape inevitably suffers acute trauma and it was some time before such a victim was in a position to make a lucid and sensible statement - Moreover, rape itself

brings enormous shame to the victim and it was after much persuasion that a rape victim goes to the police station to lodge a report and if some delay if occasioned that cannot in any way detract from the other credible evidence - Appeal dismissed. 15) Vijay @ Chinee v. State of Madhya Pradesh MANU/SC/0522/2010 : (2010) 8 SCC 191. After discussing the entire case law, this Court concluded in paragraph 14 of the Report as follows: Thus, the law that emerges on the issue is to the effect that the statement of the prosecutrix if found to be worthy of credence and reliable, requires no corroboration. The Court may convict the accused on the sole testimony of the prosecutrix. 16) Appellants: Mulla and Anr. Vs. Respondent: State of Uttar Pradesh e accused Mulla is of the age 50 years and Guddu is of the age 30 years at the time of committing the offence in question. No material was placed or available about the family background of these two accused and whether these persons are married or not and about the family circumstance etc. The perusal of the case records also shows that no one is depending on them and no family responsibility is on the shoulders of these accused persons. 17)Punishment is the way in which society expresses its denunciation of wrong doing; and, in order to maintain respect for the law, it is essential that the punishment inflicted for grave crimes should adequately reflect the revulsion felt by the great majority of citizens for them. It is a mistake to consider the objects of punishments as being a deterrent or reformative or preventive and nothing else.... The truth is that some crimes are so outrageous that society insists on adequate punishment, because the wrong doer deserves it, irrespective of whether it is a deterrent or not. 18) Section 360(1) lays down the limit of the gravity of the offence that can be dealt with, in view of the age and the sex of the offenders, under that section, and the mention of certain 19) section 360(1) Crpc inapplicable....because no previous should be proved. 20) puspanjali sahu vs state of orrisa The court will be failing in its duty if appropriate punishment is not awarded for a crime which has been committed not only against the individual victim but also against the society to which the criminal and victim belong. The punishment to be awarded for a crime must not be irrelevant but it should conform to and be consistent with the atrocity and brutality with which the crime has been perpetrated, the enormity of the crime warranting public abhorrence and it should 'respond to the society's

cry for justice against the criminal'. If for the extremely heinous crime of murder perpetrated in a very brutal manner without any provocation, most deterrent punishment is not given, the case of deterrent punishment will 21) Whether reliance should be placed on medical evidence, if certificates relating to academic records was deliberately withheld in order to conceal age of Accused and authenticity of medical evidence regarding age was under challenge - Held, when an Accused committed a grave and heinous offence and thereafter attempted to take statutory shelter under guise of being a minor, a casual or cavalier approach while recording as to whether an Accused was a juvenile or not could not be permitted - Because, Courts were enjoined upon to perform their duties with object of protecting confidence of common man in institution entrusted with administration of justice - Accused could not be allowed to abuse statutory protection by attempting to prove himself as a minor when documentary evidence to prove his minority gave rise to a reasonable doubt about his assertion of minority - Under such circumstance, medical evidence based on scientific investigation would have to be given due weight and precedence over evidence based on school administration records which gave rise to hypothesis and speculation about age of Accused - Trial C If plea of juvenility or fact that he had not attained age of discretion so as to understand consequence of his heinous act was not free from ambiguity or doubt, then said plea could not be allowed to be raised nts: Om Prakash Vs. nts: Om Prakash Vs. Respondent: State of Rajasthan and Anr. r. 22) the case of persons under 21 years age or any woman, the benefit of section360(1) can be extended only where the offence is one not punishable with death or imprisonment for life. Bipin Bihari Sahu v. State, 1986 Cr LJ 406 (Ori). 23) HC has taken a lenient view 24)