Research › Search › Judgment

J&K High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 120 (JK)

Premu v. State

2005-04-27

Y.P.NARGOTRA

body2005
1. Accused-appellant, Premu, has been convicted for commission of rape on the prosecutrix, Mst. Parveen, and sentenced to suffer imprisonment for six years out of which 1/4th to be rigorous, and a fine of Rs.2000/- and in default of payment of fine to further imprisonment of six months, by the court of learned Addl.Sessions Judge Ramban by his judgment/order dated 23.7.1997/24.7.1997. The accused was charged for commission of offences under sections 376/342 RPC whereas co-accused, Mst. Vidaya Devi, his wife, was charged for commission of offences as contemplated by sec.342/376 RPC read with sec.114-RPC. The accused Vidaya Devi has been acquitted by the trial court and State has not filed any appeal against her acquittal. The accused-appellant Premu is in appeal. State has, however, come up in criminal revision against the order dated 24.7.1997 on the question of adequacy of the sentence imposed by the Trial court. 2. The case of the prosecution before the Trial Court was that on 19.4.1985 the father of the prosecutrix PW Nazir Ahmed when was away from the house, wife of the appellant, Vidaya Devi, came to the house of the prosecutrix at 7 PM and asked her to come alongwith her for giving her company for the night as her husband, the appellant, was away and she was alone in the house. On the request of Vidaya Devi the prosecutrix went with her to the house of the accused. The accused and father of the prosecutrix are neighbours. During the night at about 8.30/9 PM the accused returned to his house. On his return the prosecutrix asked him to be taken back to her house but the appellant and his wife told the prosecutrix that as it was already late so she should stay for the night and would be sent back in the morning. The prosecutrix thus stayed in the house of the accused for the night. The prosecutrix at the time of occurrence was minor, aged ten years. She, as per the prosecution story, was sleeping. During the night the accused picked up the prosecutrix and made her to sleep with him. Then he untied her shalwar and committed sexual intercourse with her. the next day i.e. 20.4.1985 the prosecutrix was forced by the accused out of his house. She, as per the prosecution story, was sleeping. During the night the accused picked up the prosecutrix and made her to sleep with him. Then he untied her shalwar and committed sexual intercourse with her. the next day i.e. 20.4.1985 the prosecutrix was forced by the accused out of his house. She came out crying, whereupon PW Shamima Begum, who happened to be a relation of father of the prosecutrix, noticed her in a bad shape. She took her to her home and sent information to the father of the prosecutrix,PW Nazir Ahmed who was at Dharamkund. He reached back in the afternoon and after coming to know about the incident lodged a written report in Police Station Ramban on 21.4.1985. On his report FIR was registered at 18.30 hours for commission of offences u/ss 376,342/109 RPC. The prosecutrix could not be got medically examined, as in Ramban hospital no lady doctor was available. She was sent to Batote hospital but in Batote hospital too no lady doctor was available, therefore, she was taken to Udhampur hospital where she was examined on 23.7.1985 at 7 AM. 3. PW Dr.Sumriti Gulahti,Assistant Surgeon District Hospital Udhampur on examination of the prosecutrix noticed that the clothes of the prosecutrix had stains of secretions mixed with blood .external marks of violence present on both sides of labia majora and below the vulva. There were reddish patches of skin and prosecutrix was bleeding. It was found that bleeding was present, hymen was ruptured, a slight tear on the mucosal surface was bleeding. On vaginal smear examination many RBC were found but no spermatozoa was seen. The doctor also observed that as per history rape had been done three days back on 19/20 April 1985, so in her opinion it was possible that no spermatozoa could be seen in vaginal smear. She opined that it appeared to her that rape had been done or something had been admitted in vagina. 4. After the medical examination,during the course of investigation accused was arrested. On his disclosure statement at his instance three pieces of used cloth were recovered and seized. Bloodstained shalwar was also seized and after sealing the shalwar and pieces of clothes so recovered were sent for Forensic examination. For determination of age of the prosecutrix radiological tests were also got conducted. On his disclosure statement at his instance three pieces of used cloth were recovered and seized. Bloodstained shalwar was also seized and after sealing the shalwar and pieces of clothes so recovered were sent for Forensic examination. For determination of age of the prosecutrix radiological tests were also got conducted. As per report of the Radiologist age of the prosecutrix was certified to be below 14 years and above ten years. Statements of the prosecution witnesses were recorded u/s 161 Cr.P.C. During investigation accused was also got medically examined and the doctor who examined him opined that clinically he was fit to perform sexual intercourse. After completing investigation charge sheet against the appellant and his wife was instituted. The accused were charged as aforesaid by the Addl.Sessions Judge and they were called upon to plead. Both the accused pleaded not guilty, hence the prosecution was directed to lead evidence. Prosecution examined 13 witnesses namely Nazir Ahmed, prosecutrix, Abdullah, Isherdas, Suram Chand. Mst.Shamimi, Bashir Ali,Niaz Ali, Dr.Sumirta Gulati. Dr.Vinay Mahajan,Kunjlal,Roshan Din, and Sehaj Ram I.O.. After the closure of prosecution evidence statement of the accused u/s 342 Cr.P.C. were recorded. The accused denied the occurrence in their statements. They entered the defence and examined DW Abdul Hamid,Patwari, Kanshi Ram, Ditoo and Mohd Shafi. Defence also produced a copy of the statement of one Lachoo recorded as a prosecution witness on 19.12.1983 in file No.19-challan entitled State vs Rehiman and others u/ss 454/357 RPC decided on 22.4.1984, by the court of Judicial Magistrate Ramban in order to show that PWs Shamima and her husband Manzoor Ahmed were instrumental for making the prosecutrix to depose against the accused for the reason that Lachoo, the father of appellant Premu, had made a statement against Manzoor Ahmed in the said criminal case. Learned trial court after appreciating the evidence of the prosecution and the defence accepted the prosecution story as against the appellant Premu but acquitted accused Vidaya Devi on the ground that it had not been established by the prosecution that she had facilitated the commission of rape on the prosecutrix. 5. I have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned Addl.Advocate General, for the State. I have also gone through the record of the case and the evidence recorded during the trial thoroughly. 6. 5. I have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned Addl.Advocate General, for the State. I have also gone through the record of the case and the evidence recorded during the trial thoroughly. 6. Learned trial court has mainly relied upon the evidence of the prosecutrix for coming to the conclusion that the prosecution has succeeded in bringing home the guilt to the accused. The prosecutrix PW2 has been proved to be of the age below 14 years and above 10 years by the evidence of the Radiologist PW Dr.Vinay Mahajan,as such she was minor. The defence has not disputed the fact of minority of the prosecutrix. 7. The prosecutrix in her statement has deposed that the accused were known to her. Some six months back Vidaya Devi (wife of the appellant) in the evening came to her home and told her that she was alone at the house on that day so she should spent night with her. She went to the house of Vidaya Devi with her. The moment she and Vidaya Devi had slept accused Premu reached there. She and Vidaya Devi slept on a cot whereas appellant slept on the ground. Thereafter Premu picked her up and made her to sleep with him. Then he untied her shalwar forcibly and made her lay on her back side and forcibly inserted his male organ in her vagina two three times. She had raised an alarm whereupon Vidaya Devi had closed her mouth with her hands and told her that in case she raised any cry or revealed to some body she will be cut into pieces and thrown into the river in the morning. She had suffered pain and was bleeding. She became unconscious and regained consciousness after two hours. She told them that she (prosecutrix) be taken to her home but both the accused told that it was night time so she cannot be taken home. Thereafter she slept with Vidaya Devi. In the morning when she came out she narrated the matter to her aunt and she took her home. Her father was at Dharamkund on that day in connection with some work. Her aunt sent her brother to call him. That her statement was recorded by the police and her medical examination was conducted at Udhampur. 8. In the morning when she came out she narrated the matter to her aunt and she took her home. Her father was at Dharamkund on that day in connection with some work. Her aunt sent her brother to call him. That her statement was recorded by the police and her medical examination was conducted at Udhampur. 8. Mr.Thakur learned counsel for the appellant submits that the story of the prosecution is improbable and cannot be believed. He submits that how can a wife allow her husband to commit such heinous crime in her presence. According to Mr.Thakur the accused has been falsely implicated on account of previous grouse borne by the uncle of the prosecutrix against whom the father of the accused had appeared as a witness in a criminal case titled State vs Rehiman and others. He submits quite possibly in order to frame the accused in the case something else might have been inserted into the vagina of the prosecutrix so as to cause injuries. The possibility of the injuries found on the person of the prosecutrix due to inserting of some object has not been ruled out by PW Dr.Sumitra Gulati who conducted her medical examination. He argued that the vaginal smear subjected to clinical tests has not been found containing any spermatozoa. According to Mr.Thakur if the prosecutrix would have been raped the presence of spermatozoa would have been found. He submits that there is no corroboration even from the medical evidence to the version of the prosecutrix therefore her sole testimony could not be made and cannot be made basis for conviction of the accused. In support of his contention he relies upon following cases: - AIR 1950 Nagpur 9 Cr.L.J. 1973 1958. Per contra the contention of learned Addl.Advocate General is that the evidence of the prosecutrix is fully reliable and merits acceptance on its face value, as the same has not been impeached by the defence in the cross-examination. He submits that under law conviction can be based on the sole testimony of the prosecutrix without insisting for corroboration. According to him in this case there is sufficient corroboration to the testimony of the prosecutrix on all material particulars and therefore was rightly relied upon by the trial court. He submits that under law conviction can be based on the sole testimony of the prosecutrix without insisting for corroboration. According to him in this case there is sufficient corroboration to the testimony of the prosecutrix on all material particulars and therefore was rightly relied upon by the trial court. In Ganga Ram v. The Crown, AIR 1950 Nagpur 9 the Nagpur High Court held:- Although permissible legally, it is dangerous to convict an accused in a sexual case on the uncorroborated evidence of a prosecutrix. This rule would necessarily apply whether the prosecutrix were an adult or a girl of only seven years of age. It is a sound rule in practice not to act on the uncorroborated evidence of a child, although under the Indian law the rule is a rule of prudence and not of law.� In case Lachman v. State, 1973 Cr.l.J. 1658 Himachal Pradesh High Court held as follows:- It is very well settled rule that in rape cases the evidence of the complainant must be corroborated. A charge of rape is a very difficult one to refute and in common fairness to accused persons, the courts insist on corroboration of the complainant™s story. However, the nature of the corroboration must necessarily depend on the facts of each particular case. Where rape is denied, the sort of corroboration one looks for is medical evidence showing injury to the private parts of the complainant, injury to other parts of her body, which may have occasioned in a struggle, seminal stains on her clothes or the clothes of the accused or on the places where the offence is alleged to have been committed and in all cases importance is attached to the subsequent conduct of the complainant.� The view expressed by Nagpur High Court and supported by Himachal Pardesh High Court is no longer a correct position of law on the subject. In Bhoginbhai Hirjibhai v. Stat of Gujrat,AIR 1983 SC 753 their lordships of the Apex Court held as follows:- Corroboration is not the sine qua non for a conviction a rape case. In the Indian setting refusal to act on the testimony of a victim of sexual assault in the absence of corroboration as a rule is adding insult to injury. In the Indian setting refusal to act on the testimony of a victim of sexual assault in the absence of corroboration as a rule is adding insult to injury. Why should the evidence of the girl or the woman who complaints of rape or sexual molestation be viewed with the aid of spectacles fitted with lenses tinged with doubt, disbelief or suspicion? To do so is to justify the charge of male chauvinism in a male dominated society.� Their lordships further held:- A girl or a woman in the tradition bound non-permissive society of India would be extremely reluctant even to admit that any incident which is likely to reflect on her chastity had ever occurred. She would be conscious of the danger of being ostracized by the society or being looked down by the society including by her own family members, relatives, friends and neighbors. She would face the risk of losing the love and respect of her own husband and near relatives and of her matrimonial home and happiness being shattered. If she is unmarried, she would apprehend that it would be difficult to secure an alliance with a suitable match from a respectable or an acceptable family. In view of these and similar factors the victims and their relatives are not too keen to bring the culprit to book. And when in the face of these factors the crime is brought to light there is a built-in assurance that the charge is genuine rather than fabricated.� How the evidence of a victim of sexual assault is to be treated their lordship observed as follows:- On principle the evidence of a victim of sexual assault stands on par with evidence of an injured witness. Just as a witness who has sustained an injury (which is not shown or believed to be self inflicted) is the best witness in the sense that he is least likely to exculpate the real offender, the evidence of a victim of a sex-offence is entitled to great weight, absence of corroboration notwithstanding. And while corroboration in the form of eye-witness may often be forthcoming in physical assault cases, such evidence cannot be expected in sex offence, having regard to the very nature of the offence. It would therefore be adding insult to injury to insist on corroboration drawing inspiration from the rules devised by the courts in the Western World. And while corroboration in the form of eye-witness may often be forthcoming in physical assault cases, such evidence cannot be expected in sex offence, having regard to the very nature of the offence. It would therefore be adding insult to injury to insist on corroboration drawing inspiration from the rules devised by the courts in the Western World. If the evidence of the victim does not suffer from any basic infirmity and the ˜probabilities factor™ does not render it unworthy of credence, as a general rule, there is no reason to insist on corroboration except from the medical evidence where having regard to the circumstances of the case medical evidence can be expected to be forthcoming subject to the following qualification :Corroboration may be insisted upon when a woman having attained majority is found in a compromising position and there is a likelihood of her having leveled such an accusation on account of the instinct of self-preservation. Or when ˜probabilities-factor™ is found to be out of tune.� 9. In view of the law laid down by the Supreme Court corroboration is not to be insisted upon in all cases for acceptance of the evidence of a victim of rape. It may be looked for when the court finds that there is likelihood of leveling of such an accusation on account of instinct of self-preservation or when probabilities factor is found to be out of tune. In State of Maharashtra v.Chandraprakash Kewal Chand Jain, AIR 1990 SC 658 the Supreme Court held as follows:- A prosecutrix of a sex offence cannot be put on par with an accomplice. She is in fact a victim of the crime. The Evidence Act nowhere says that her evidence cannot be accepted unless it is corroborated in material particulars. She is undoubtedly a competent witness under sec.118 and her evidence must receive the same weight as is attached to an injured in cases of physical violence. The same degree of care and caution must attach in the evaluation of her evidence as in the case of injured complainant or witness or no more. What is necessary is that the court must be alive to and conscious of the fact that it is dealing with evidence of a person who is interested in the outcome of the charge leveled by her. What is necessary is that the court must be alive to and conscious of the fact that it is dealing with evidence of a person who is interested in the outcome of the charge leveled by her. If the court keep this in mind and feels satisfied that it can act on the evidence of the prosecutrix, there is no rule of law or practice incorporated in the Evidence Act similar to illustration (b) to S.114 which requires it to look for corroboration. If for some reason the court is hesitant to place implicit reliance on the testimony of the prosecutrix it may look for evidence which may lend assurance to her testimony short of corroboration required in the case of an accomplice. The nature of evidence required to lend assurance to the testimony of the prosecutrix must necessarily depend on the facts and circumstances of each case. But if a prosecutrix is an adult and of full understanding the court is entitled to base a conviction on her evidence unless the same is shown to be infirm and not trustworthy. If the totality of the circumstances appearing on the record of the case disclose that the prosecutrix does not have a strong motive to falsely involve the person charged, the court should ordinarily have no hesitation in accepting her evidence.� In Karnel Singh V.State of M.P. AIR 1995 SC 2472 the Court held that delay in lodging complaints in rape cases in India does not raise inference that complaint was false. Reluctance to go to police is because of society™s attitude towards such women victims. In AIR 1996 SC 1393, State of Punjab v. Gurmit Singh the Supreme Court held as under:- The testimony of victim in cases of sexual offences is vital and unless there are compelling reasons which necessitate looking for corroboration of her statement, the courts should find no difficulty to act 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. Seeking corroboration of her statement before relying upon the same, as a rule, in such cases amounts to adding insult to injury. Why should the evidence of a girl or a woman who complains of rape or sexual molestation be viewed with doubt, disbelief or suspicion? Seeking corroboration of her statement before relying upon the same, as a rule, in such cases amounts to adding insult to injury. Why should the evidence of a girl or a woman who complains of rape or sexual molestation be viewed with doubt, disbelief or suspicion? The court while appreciating the evidence of a prossecutrix may look for some assurance of her statement to satisfy its judicial conscience since she is a witness who is interested in the outcome of the charge leveled by her but there is no requirement of law to insist upon corroboration of her statement to base conviction of an accused. The evidence of a victim of sexual assault stands almost at par with the evidence of an injured witness and to an extent is even more reliable. Just as a witness who has sustained some injury in the occurrence, which is not found to be self inflicted is considered to be good witness in the sense that he is least likely to shield the real culprit, the evidence of a victim of a sexual offence is entitled to great weight, absence of corroboration notwithstanding.� 10. The evidence of PW2 the prosecutrix can be accepted if it inspires confidence of the court and there is some evidence to lend assurance to her testimony. I have gone through the evidence of PW2. She has been submitted to lengthy cross-examination but there is nothing in the answers given to the questions of the defence by which her credibility can be impeached. The prosecutrix in her statement has in categoric terms deposed that during night she was picked up while she was asleep by the appellant and made to sleep with him. Then he untied her shalwar forcibly and made her lie on her back side and then forcible inserted his male organ into her vagina 2/3 times. Due to the act of the appellant she suffered pain and was bleeding and became unconscious and regained consciousness after two hours. She asked the accused-appellant and his wife to take her back to her home but both of them told, as it was night so she cannot be taken home. Thereafter she slept with Vidaya Devi and in the morning when she came out she narrated the matter to her aunt who took her to her home. She asked the accused-appellant and his wife to take her back to her home but both of them told, as it was night so she cannot be taken home. Thereafter she slept with Vidaya Devi and in the morning when she came out she narrated the matter to her aunt who took her to her home. The aunt of the prosecutrix is PW6 Mst.Shamima who has supported the version of the prosecutrix by saying that she had gone for attending the call of nature the prosecutrix had called her with the signal of her hand. She went there and saw that the prosecutrix was unconscious so she picked her up and took her to her house. From the evidence of PW Shamima assurance is lent to the evidence of the prosecutrix as she had seen the prosecutrix in a bad shape after she came out of the house of the accused. Strong corroboration has been provided to the statement of the prosecutrix by the evidence of Dr.Sumrita Gulati, Assistant Surgeon District Hospital Udhampur who examined the prosecutrix on 23.7.1985 i.e. about three days after the occurrence. Even after three days of the occurrence she noticed that clothes of the prosecutrix had stains of secretion mixed with blood, external marks of violence were found on both sides labia majora and below the vulva. There were reddish patches of skin and prosecutrix was bleeding, the hymen was found ruptured and slight tear on the mucosal surface was bleeding. In the face of these injuries on the person of the prosecutrix her version finds sufficient support. The contention of learned counsel for the appellant that as no spermatozoa could be seen in the vaginal smear it could not be a case of rape. He argued that there was a possibility of some foreign object having been inserted into the vagina of the prosecutrix so as to falsely implicate the accused. The absence of spermatozoa in the present case as per the evidence of the doctor rape had been committed three days back so it was possible that no spermatozoa may be seen in the vaginal smear. The defence has not dared to ask the prosecutrix that the injuries on her person were not because of rape but were because of insertion of some foreign object. The defence has not dared to ask the prosecutrix that the injuries on her person were not because of rape but were because of insertion of some foreign object. In the absence of such suggestion to the prosecutrix the story being propounded by the defence cannot be accepted. Why will she insert something in her vagina to cause serious injuries to her private part? No explanation has been sought from her by the defence. Going by the nature of the injuries found by the doctor on her person it cannot be believed that such injuries could be self-inflicted by the prosecutrix. 11. Counsel for the appellant also argued that if the injuries were not self-inflicted then it could have been inflicted by insertion of some foreign object by PW Shamima who had previous enmity with the father of the accused. The argument is far-fetched and cannot be accepted. No aunt or father would inflict such kind of injuries on the person of his minor niece or daughter simply to settle scores with the accused. It has also been argued by Mr.Thakur that the story of rape is improbable because no wife would allow her husband to rape a minor in her presence. This argument of the counsel for the appellant is also unacceptable. As per the story of the prosecution and as per version of the prosecutrix she was picked up by the accused when she was asleep and it was only when she was sleeping that the accused committed rape. After rape the wife of the accused may have come to know about the occurrence but in view of her relationship with the appellant she kept silent. There is no improbability in the story of the prosecutrix. 12. The prosecution therefore is found to have very cogently, completely and convincingly proved the allegation that the accused committed rape on the minor prosecutrix and the learned trial court has rightly convicted the accused for the said offences. The judgment of the trial court, so far as conviction is concerned, merits no interference and is upheld. 13. The learned trial Judge, as already said, after convicting the accused has awarded substantive sentence of imprisonment for a period of six years, out of which 1/4th has been ordered to be rigorous. The judgment of the trial court, so far as conviction is concerned, merits no interference and is upheld. 13. The learned trial Judge, as already said, after convicting the accused has awarded substantive sentence of imprisonment for a period of six years, out of which 1/4th has been ordered to be rigorous. For the offence of rape u/s 376 RPC the punishment provided is imprisonment of either description for a term which shall not be less than seven years but which may be for life or for a term, which may extend to ten years and shall also be liable to fine. Thus the minimum imprisonment provided for the offence of rape is seven years but under the proviso added to sec.376 the court is empowered to impose sentence of imprisonment for a term of less than seven years for adequate and special reasons to be mentioned in the judgment. The reasons recorded by the trial court for imposing lesser punishment is that the accused has been facing trial from 1985 i.e. for more than 12 years which fact weighs in his favour. Learned trial judge though has recorded that from the record it is revealed that to a large extent the accused himself was responsible for causing the delay and in getting the proceedings protracted but as he has little children and is the only bread-winner for the family therefore ends of justice would meet if he is awarded lesser punishment and he accordingly sentenced the appellant as aforesaid. 14. Against awarding lesser punishment the State has filed a Criminal revision. The contention of the learned Addl.Advocate General is that the sentence imposed is grossly inadequate and is not proper having regard to the nature of offence and the manner in which it has been committed. He submits that the accused has ravished a minor girl who has to face the trauma of the offence for whole of her life. She must have been mentally and emotionally shattered and would not be in a position to live a normal life. Mr.Salathia submits that going by the gravity of the offence the punishment deserves to be enhancement to the maximum as provided under sec.376 RPC. 15. She must have been mentally and emotionally shattered and would not be in a position to live a normal life. Mr.Salathia submits that going by the gravity of the offence the punishment deserves to be enhancement to the maximum as provided under sec.376 RPC. 15. Mr.Thakur learned counsel for the appellant submits that the learned Trial Judge has rightly imposed lesser punishment in the circumstances of the case, the accused has suffered prosecution for a period of about 20 years now, he has a large family to lookafter, according to him in case the sentence is enhanced it will not be a punishment to the accused alone but would be a punishment to his family also which surely would be shattered after the sole bread earner goes to jail. Mr.Thakur also submits that the accused comes from a rural area and is not educated therefore deserves leniency at the hands of the court. 16. In State of M.P. vs Munna Choubey AIR SCW 2005 page 443 two accused faced trial for commission of offence punishable u/ss. 450,376(1)/109(1) IPC. One accused was convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of seven years with a fine of Rs.2000/-in default stipulation for offence relatable to sec.376(1) he was also sentenced to undergo imprisonment for five years for the offence u/s 450 IPC. Both the substantive sentences were directed to run concurrently. Aggrieved by the conviction and sentence imposed by the trial court the accused preferred an appeal. The High Court of M.P. maintained the conviction and directed the sentence to be reduced to the period already undergone. One of the accused, Munna, had undergone the imprisonment for a period of three years six months while the other accused Ghanysham had undergoneimprisonment for a period of two months only. The only ground for reducing the sentence was that the accused persons come from rural areas. The State filed SLP before the Supreme Court. Their lordships considered the question whether the sentence imposed was proper and observed that physical scar may heal up but the mental scar will always remain. When a woman is ravished what is inflicted is not merely physical injury but the deep sense of some deathless shame.� Their lordships further observed, The law regulates social interests, arbitrates conflicting claims and demands. Security of persons and property of the people is an essential function of the State. When a woman is ravished what is inflicted is not merely physical injury but the deep sense of some deathless shame.� Their lordships further observed, The law regulates social interests, arbitrates conflicting claims and demands. Security of persons and property of the people is an essential function of the State. It could be achieved through instrumentality of criminal law. Undoubtedly, there is a cross cultural conflict where living law must find answer to the new challenges and the courts are required to mould the sentence system to meet the challenges. The contagion of lawlessness would undermine social order and lay it in ruins. Protection of society and stamping out criminal proclivity must be the object of law, which must be achieved by imposing appropriate sentence. Therefore, law as a corner-stone of the edifice of order� should meet the challenges confronting the society.� Their lordships after taking into consideration various judgments of the Supreme Court on the subject further observed as follows:- Imposition of sentence without considering its effect on the social order in any cases may be in reality a futile exercise. The social impact of the crime e.g. where it relates to offences against women, dacoity, kidnapping, misappropriation of public money, treason and other offences involving moral turpitude or moral delinquency which have great impact on social order and public interest, cannot be lost sight of and per se require exemplary treatment. Any liberal attitude by imposing meager sentences or taking too sympathetic view merely on account of lapse of time in respect of such offences will be result-wise counter productive in the long run and against societal interest which needs to be cared for and strengthened by string of deterrence inbuilt in the sentencing system.� It has further been observed :- Both in cases of sub-section (1) and (2) of sec.376 the court has the discretion to impose a sentence of imprisonment less than the prescribed minimum for ˜adequate and special reasons™. If the court does not mention such reasons in the judgment there is no scope for awarding a sentence lesser than the prescribed minimum. In order to exercise the discretion of reducing the sentence the statutory requirement is that the court has to record ˜adequate and special reasons� in the judgment and not fanciful reasons which would permit the court to impose a sentence less than the prescribed minimum. In order to exercise the discretion of reducing the sentence the statutory requirement is that the court has to record ˜adequate and special reasons� in the judgment and not fanciful reasons which would permit the court to impose a sentence less than the prescribed minimum. The reasons have not only to be adequate but also special. What is adequate and special would depend upon several factors and no straitjacket formula can be indicated. What is applicable to trial courts regarding recording reasons for a departure from minimum sentence is equally applicable to the High Court. The only reason indicated by the High Court is that the accused belong to rural areas. The same can by no stretch of imagination be considered either adequate or special. The requirement of law is cumulative.� With the aforesaid observations their lordships set aside the order of the High Court and directed the accused to suffer sentences imposed by the trial court. 17. In the present case the grounds on which lesser sentence has been awarded by no stretch of imagination can be considered either adequate or special. Simply because the accused has succeeded in protracting the trial or he comes from a rural background or has a family to lookafter is no ground to award a lesser sentence as the same cannot be treated as adequate and special reasons. While awarding sentence the court should be alive to the situation, must take into consideration society™s cry for justice and also keep the victim, of the offence in mind. In the present case the offence is ghastly. The appellant has raped a minor girl who had come to his house for giving company to his wife. The accused deserves to be dealt with strictly. The punishment awarded by the trial court, in my considered view, is grossly inadequate in view of the gravity of the offence. I, therefore, enhance the same to rigorous imprisonment for ten years with same amount of fine, which has been directed by the Trial Court. In default of payment of fine the appellant shall suffer further imprisonment for a period of six months. 18. The appeal of the appellant is, as such, dismissed, and the revision petition filed by the State is allowed and the conviction of the accused is maintained and the sentence however altered as aforesaid. The bail bonds of the accused-appellant are cancelled. 18. The appeal of the appellant is, as such, dismissed, and the revision petition filed by the State is allowed and the conviction of the accused is maintained and the sentence however altered as aforesaid. The bail bonds of the accused-appellant are cancelled. The appellant shall surrender before the trial court, which shall send him to jail to suffer the sentence. In case the appellant does not surrender before the Trial Court, it shall secure his presence by issuance of non-bailable warrants. Record of the case be returned to the Trial court forthwith, alongwith a copy of this judgment.