The Supreme Court has once again asserted that the gravity of an offence shall be the sole criteria for determining the quantum of punishment in heinous crimes and any leniency given to the accused on the basis of his or victim’s social status would be a travesty of justice.
Upholding an appeal filed by the Rajasthan Government against an order of the High Court which reduced the 10 year’s rigorous imprisonment awarded to a rapist by the trial court, a Bench comprising Justices Arijit Pasayat and P Sathasivam said that socio-economic status, religion, race, caste or creed of the accused or that of the victim are irrelevant considerations, especially while dealing with offences against women.
The Rajasthan High Court had reduced the 10 years’ RI awarded to one Madan Singh to seven years on the ground that the accused is a young person who is the only bread earner of his family and his kids.
Observing that the legislative mandate to impose 10 years’ RI for the offence of raping a minor reflects the intent of stringency, the court held that it cannot be reduced except for special and adequate reasons.
“The courts are obliged to respect the legislative mandate in the matter of awarding of sentence in all such cases. When there are no extenuating or mitigating circumstances available on the record, which may justify imposition of any sentence less than the prescribed minimum, the courts are expected to impose a sentence commensurate with the gravity of the offence.”
Earlier, the apex court had criticised the Madhya Pradesh HC for reducing the minimum sentence awarded to a rapist, saying that he was an “illiterate agriculturist from a rural area”.