Judgment : 1. The appellant is challenging the judgment and order dated 14th February, 2007 passed by learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Bhandara in Sessions Trial No. 45/2006 whereby the appellant/accused was convicted for offence punishable under sections 376, 448, 506 of the Indian Penal Code ( in short “IPC”). For offence punishable under section 376 IPC, the appellant/accused was sentenced to suffer R. I. for seven years and fine in the sum of Rs.1,000/-in default, to undergo further RI for one year ; for offence punishable u/s 448, R I for one year and fine of Rs. 100/-in default to undergo RI for one month; whereas for offence u/s 506 IPC, he was sentenced to suffer R.I. for one year and to pay a fine in the sum of Rs.100/-in default, to further undergo R.I. for one month, with a direction that substantive sentences to run concurrently; with further direction that out of the amount of fine, a sum of Rs. 1,000/-shall be payable as compensation to the prosecutrix. 2. Facts of the case filtering out unnecessary details, are these : That victim Sau. Madhuri, aged about 22 years along with her daughter Megha, aged about 3 years were sleeping on a cot; while her husband was out of station and mother-in-law was not present at the house. It is alleged that the appellant/accused had entered in her house and taking advantage of the fact that she was lonely, had threatened her at the point of knife (Bicchhwa) and forcibly committed rape upon her. The victim had narrated the incident to Vandana Kevat (PW 2); and thereafter lodged report (Exh.11). The investigation followed and the appellant was charge-sheeted upon completion of investigation. 3. The trial Court had framed charge against the appellant on 2nd December, 2006 to which the appellant pleaded “not guilty” and claimed to be tried. The prosecutrix-Madhuri deposed as PW 1 about the incident of forcible rape committed by the appellant at the point of knife, threatening her with dire consequences, if she raises shout, with further threatening not to disclose the incident to anybody; lest he would kill her then and there. The incident was reported to the police vide Exh.11. The prosecutrix-Madhuri deposed as PW 1 about the incident of forcible rape committed by the appellant at the point of knife, threatening her with dire consequences, if she raises shout, with further threatening not to disclose the incident to anybody; lest he would kill her then and there. The incident was reported to the police vide Exh.11. Vandana (PW 2) who initially was shying off to disclose the fact, had to be cross-examined by learned APP and she admitted that the prosecutrix had narrated the incident about forcible sexual intercourse by the appellant. The prosecution also relied upon the evidence of Dr. Shahank Kshirsagar (PW 4) who deposed about medical examination of the appellant (accused) to certify that the accused was capable of performing sexual intercourse. The appellant was examined pursuant to requisition letter Exh.17. PW 7 Dr. Ashish Bannerji examined by the prosecution also indicated that he had examined the prosecutrix-Madhuri and issued certificate Exh.32 regarding the medical examination. The Investigating Officer also deposed about the investigation done in this case. 4. The learned trial Judge after considering the entire evidence led, found the accused guilty and sentenced him to suffer imprisonment and fine, as aforesaid. 5. The defence of the appellant was of total denial. 6. Perused the impugned judgment and order. It appears that the trial Court had considered the evidence of the prosecutrix which appears to have been well-corroborated by rest of the evidence regarding criminal trespass committed by the accused, threat given to the prosecutrix to kill her if she raises shouts, and also forcible rape committed upon her on 30.1.2009 at about 9.00 p.m. 7. Learned counsel for the appellant criticised the judgment by submitting that when the prosecutrix-Madhuri was along with her minor daughter, aged about 3years, she would have raised hue and cry. Furthermore, the knicker of the prosecutrix was allegedly recovered at the instance of the appellant. 8. Learned APP with a vigour, supported the judgment and order passed by the trial Court and contended that the appellant was armed with weapon like knife and had threatened the prosecutrix not to raise shouts. Under these circumstances, the sleeping daughter might not have been awakened; while the offender committed rape upon the prosecutrix. 8. Learned APP with a vigour, supported the judgment and order passed by the trial Court and contended that the appellant was armed with weapon like knife and had threatened the prosecutrix not to raise shouts. Under these circumstances, the sleeping daughter might not have been awakened; while the offender committed rape upon the prosecutrix. It is submitted that the learned trial Judge did consider the entire evidence on record in its right perspective, including circumstantial evidence which corroborated the version of the prosecutrix to arrive at correct and logical conclusion of conviction of the appellant. 9. Learned counsel for the appellant, in the alternative, submitted that the appellant is having five children to look after besides, an aged mother and, therefore, sentence imposed upon him for offence u/s 376 be reduced to that of already undergone. Learned Advocate made a reference to the ruling in State of Rajasthan vs. Gajendra Singh reported in 2008 (11) Scale Page 9,in order to submit that for special and adequate reasons lesser punishment may be imposed than the prescribed minimum for offence punishable under section 376 IPC. It is also submitted that in such matter judicial discretion has to be used and for that purpose no straightjacket formula is prescribed. The Apex Court observed that the Court has to record 'adequate and special reasons' in the judgment and not fanciful reasons which would permit the Court to impose the less than the prescribed minimum; whereas what is adequate and special would depend upon several factors without any straitjacket formula can be indicated. 10. In the ruling cited, it appears that judgment of the High Court which reduced sentence without justification than the prescribed minimum, was set aside and it was directed that the respondent shall serve minimum seven years R.I. 11. Learned APP made a reference to the ruling in State of M.P. vs. Munna Choube & another reported in (2005) 2 SCC page 710 to argue that special and adequate reason is requirement which is sine qua non to be recorded in the judgment and appropriate sentence being to protect society and deter the criminal, social impact of the crime and effect of sentence on social order are relevant consideration. Sentence should reflect conscience of society and should be stern where it should be. Sentence should reflect conscience of society and should be stern where it should be. Imposition of meager sentences on account of lapse of time, as in this case, is not permissible as the physical scar heals but mental scar is difficult to heal when the prosecutrix has been ravished which results in deathless shame for her. It is brought to my attention that the Apex Court in Munna Choube’s case concluded by setting aside the order of the High Court and directed the accused to surrender the remainder of the sentence. 12. The question as to whether the appellant has five children and aged mother to look after can be considered as adequate and special reason must be answered in the negative bearing in mind observations made in the aforesaid ruling that socioeconomic status of the accused or convict, religion, caste, creed are irrelevant factors. Although there is no straitjacket formula, discretion is depending upon special factors to spell out adequate and special reason. Mere submission that the appellant is required to maintain five children and aged mother would reflect upon number of family dependents stated by him; however, his socioeconomic status is irrelevant and cannot constitute “adequate and special reason”, as contemplated by philosophy of the penology contained under section 376 IPC. It is not doubt true that the Court has discretion to impose less sentence than the prescribed minimum for adequate and special reasons but merely a large family of the accused is irrelevant to determine and reduce the extent of imprisonment and fine because punishment which is to be imposed upon the convict has to be proportionate to the crime committed. The Court has to bear in mind the society's cry for justice. Discretion has to be judicious and proper and having regard to the nature of the crime and the manner in which it was committed, the sentence has to stern where it should be and tampered with mercy if it warrants to be. Considering the relevant facts established in this case in respect of nature of offence committed, the manner in which it was committed and the conduct of the accused to use weapon to threaten prosecutrix while committing the offence and such attending circumstances, I do not find any adequate and special reason to reduce the sentence than the prescribed minimum under section 376 IPC. Therefore, the contention that the accused /appellant is required to maintain five children and his old mother would not constitute adequate and special reason. It might have been otherwise had the victim herself came forward with an affidavit to forgive the appellant and to pray for lenient sentence for him. Therefore, I am not inclined to interfere with the sentence imposed by the trial Court. The appeal is therefore dismissed. 13. Advocate Akolkar, who is appointed in this case, be paid Rs.2000/- as professional charges.