Holding

The High Court's reduction of the sentence to seven years was unsustainable; absent special and adequate reasons, the mandatory minimum of ten years under Section 376(2)(f) IPC must be imposed.

Summary

The State of Rajasthan appealed the reduction of the sentence awarded to Madan Singh for raping a 10‑year‑old girl. The trial court imposed the statutory minimum of ten years imprisonment under Section 376(2)(f) of the IPC, but the Rajasthan High Court reduced it to seven years, relying on the accused’s custodial period, his status as the sole breadwinner and his youth. The Supreme Court examined whether the High Court could lawfully depart from the mandatory minimum and what constitutes “adequate and special reasons” under the proviso of Section 376(2). It held that no such reasons were demonstrated; the gravity of the offence and legislative intent require the minimum term unless exceptional circumstances exist. Accordingly, the Court set aside the High Court order, restored the ten‑year imprisonment, and allowed the appeal.

Issues considered

Whether a court may reduce the sentence below the statutory minimum of ten years prescribed under Section 376(2)(f) IPC for rape of a girl under twelve years of age.
What constitutes "adequate and special reasons" that justify deviation from the mandatory minimum under the proviso of Section 376(2) IPC.

Legislation cited

Indian Penal Code, 1860s. 376(2), s. 376(2)(f), s. 511

Subjects

rape of minorsentencingstatutory minimumIPC 376adequate and special reasonscriminal lawsentencing guidelines

Judgment

-i-

.
l
~_,.
[2008] 2 S.C.R. 275

STATE OF RAJASTHAN
II.
A

MADAN SINGH
(Criminal Appeal No. 234 of 2008)
FEBRUARY 1, 2008
B
[DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND P. SATHASIVAM, JJ.]
,.~
Penal Code, 1860 - s. 376 (2)(f) - Rape of a minor girl -
High Court altered the sentence from 1O years to 7 years for
offence uls 376(2)(f) - Propriety of- Held: Sentence less than c
minimum provided can be awarded when there are adequate
and speciar reasons - On facts, there were no extenuating or
mitigating circumstances justifying imposition of any sentence
less than the prescribed minimum - Thus, order of High Court
not sustainable and set aside - Sentence/Sentencing.
D
Sentence/Sentencing - Rape case - Award of sentence
- General guidelines - Explained.
..,.._.
The respondent allegedly committed rape on a minor
girl aged 10 years. The trial court convicted the
E
respondent-accused under section 376 (2){f) and imposed
10 years imprisonment. However, the High Court on
considering the facts that the accused suffered custodial
sentence of about 6 years and he being the only bread
earner of the family with two kids and being young,
- _._ reduced the sentence from 10 years to 7 years. Hence F
the present appeal.
Allowing the appeal, the court
HELD: 1.1 The measure of punishment in a case of
rape cannot depend upon the social status of the victim G
- ---( or the accused. It must depend upon the conduct of the
t accused, the state and age of the sexually assaulted
female and the gravity of the criminal act. Crimes of
"
violence upon women need to be severely dealt with. The
275 H
-Y
276 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 2 S.C.R.

A socio-economic status, religion, race, caste or creed of
the accused or the victim are irrelevant considerations in
sentencing policy. Protection of society and deterring the
criminal is the avowed object of law and that is required
to be achieved by imposing an appropriate sentence. The
B sentencing Courts are expected to consider all relevant
facts and circumstances bearing on the question of
sentence and proceed to impose a sentence
commensurate with the gravity of the offence. Courts
must hear the loud cry for justice by the society in cases
c 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.
[Para 8] [279-B, C, D, E]
D 1.2 The legislative mandate to impose a sentence for
the offence of rape on a girl under 12 years of age, for a
term which shall not be less than 10 years, but which may
.~
extend to life and also to fine reflects the intent of
stringency in sentence. The proviso to Section 376(2) IPC
E lays down that the court may, for adequate and special
reasons to be mentioned in the judgment, impose
sentence of imprisonment of either description for a term
of less than 10 years. It is a fundamental rule of
construction that a proviso must be considered with
F relation to the principal matter to which it stands as a ,L
proviso particularly in such like penal provisions. The
courts are obliged to respect the legislative mandate in
the matter of awarding of sentence in all such cases.
Recourse to the proviso can be had only for "special and
G adequate reasons" and not in a casual manner. Whether
there exist any "special and adequate reasons" would
depend upon a variety of factors and the peculiar facts
and circumstances of each case. No hard and fast rule of
universal application can be laid down in that behalf.
H [Para 9] [279-G, H; 280-A, B, C]
,,
---{

' STATE OF RAJASTHAN v. MADAN SINGH 277
[PASAYAT, J.]

2. There are no extenuating or mitigating A
circumstances available on the record which may justify
imposition of any sentence less than the prescribed
minimum on the respondent. To show mercy in the case
of such a heinous crime would be a travesty of justice
• and the plea for leniency is wholly misplaced. In view of B
the aforementioned position in law the judgment of the
High Court reducing the sentence to 7 years is clearly
unsustainable and is set aside. [Paras 8 and 1O] [279-E, F;
280-D]
CRIMINALAPPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal C 1

No. 234 of 2008.
From the final Judgment dated 28.10.2005 of the High
Court of Judicature for Rajasthan at Jodhpur in S.8. Crl. J.A.
No. 581/2001.
D
Milind Kumar and Aruneshwar Gupta for the Appellant.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. 1. Leave granted.
2. Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment of a learned E
Single Judge of the Rajasthan High Court at Jodhpur. A learned
Single Judge by the impugned judgment while upholding the
conviction for offence punishable under Section 376 (2)(f) of
the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short the 'IPC'), reduced the
sentence from 1Oyears to 7 years. F
3. The respondent allegedly committed rape on a minor
girl aged about 10 years on 29.8.1999. There is no need to
refer to the factual position in detail as the High Court has upheld
the conviction. It only needs to be noted that on the basis of the G
evidence adduced, the trial Court found that the victim was aged
about 10 years. The only point which was urged before the High
Court in addition to the question of sentence was that the offence
at best was one under Section 376 read with Section 511 IPC.
It was submitted that the accused had suffered custody of about H
-\---
278 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 2 S.C.R.

A 6 years and, therefore, he being only bread earner of the family
and being of young age, the sentence should be reduced to the
period already undergone. The plea was opposed by the State
stating that in view of the statutory minimum sentence provided,
no leniency was called for. The High Court found that the trial
B Court was justified in holding the appellant guilty of offence
punishable under Section 376 (2)(f) of IPC. As the victim was
aged about 1Oyears, it held that considering the factual position
after assigning reason the minimum sentence can be reduced.
Having so observed, the High Court reduced the sentence to
C seven years and a fine of Rs.5,000/-with default stipulation with
the following conclusions was imposed:
"After having considered the entire matter and also taking
into consideration the submission of learned counsel that
the accused is a young person who is the only bread
D earner of his family and his kids who have now grown up
need his supervision, I deem it proper to reduce his
sentence under Section 376(2)(f) to a term of 7 years with
fine of Rs.5,000/- in default, to further suffer one year's
simple imprisonm..ent and modify the order of learned trial
E Court to that extent."
4. Learned coun~el for the appellant submitted that when
minimum sentence is prescribed, only for adequate and special
reasons the sentence less than minimum provided for can be
imposed. In the instant case the reasons indicated did not meet
F the requirement of law. >---
5. The respondent has not entered appearance in spite
of service of notice.
6. Both in cases of sub-sections (1) and (2) of Section
G 376 the court has the discretion fo 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.
H 7. It is to be noted that in sub-section(2) of Section 376
--1-
STATE OF RAJASTHAN v. MADAN SINGH 279
"
/~ ~
[PASAYAT, J.]
1.P.C. more stringent punishment can be awarded taking into A
account the special features indicated in the said sub-section.
'! The present case is covered by Section 376(2)(f) IPC i.e. when
I
rape is committed on a woman when she is under 12 years of
,' age. Admittedly, in the case at hand the victim was 10 years of
age at the time of commission of offence. B
j- 8. The measure of punishment in a case of rape cannot
depend upon the social status of the victim or the accused. It
must depend upon the conduct of the accused, the state and
age of the sexually assaulted female and the gravity of the
criminal act. Crimes of violence upon women need to be severely c
dealt with. The socio-economic status, religion, race, caste or
creed of the accused or the victim are irrelevant considerations
in sentencing policy. Protection of society and deterring the
f
J crimi~al is the avowed object of law and that is required to be
achieved by imposing an appropriate sentence. The sentencing D
Courts are expected to consider all relevant facts and
'r. circumstances bearing on the question of sentence and proceed
to impose a sentence commensurate with the gravity of the
-I offence. Courts must hear the loud cry for justice by the society
-\
in cases of the heinous crime of rape on innocent helpless girls E
mt of tender years, as in this case, and respond by imposition of
~ proper sentence. Public abhorrence of the crime needs

.
-l
' _..._
reflection through imposition of appropriate sentence by the
Court. There are no extenuating or mitigating circumstances
available on the record which may justify imposition of any F
sentence less than the prescribed minimum on the respondent. .
To show mercy in the case of such a heinous crime would be a
travesty of justice and the plea for leniency is wholly misplaced.
1 9. The legislative mandate to impose a sentence for the

..~~
~
offence of rape on a girl under 12 years of age, for a term which G
shall not be less than 10 years, but which may extend to life and
also to fine reflects the intent of stringency in sentence. The
proviso to Section 376(2) IPC, of course, lays down that the

.. I
court may, for adequate and special reasons to be mentioned
in the judgment, impose sentence of imprisonment of either H
t=
I
280 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 2 S.C.R.
/

A description for a term of less than 10 years. Thus, the normal
sentence in a case where rape is committed on a child below
12 years of age is not less than 10 years' RI, though in
exceptional cases "for special and adequate reasons" sentence
of less than 10years' RI can also be awarded. It is afundamental
B rule of construction that a proviso must be considered with
relation to the principal matter to which it stands as a proviso
particularly in such like penal provisions. The courts are obliged
to respect the legislative mandate in the matter of awarding of
sentence in all such cases. Recourse to the proviso can be had
c only for "special and adequate reasons" and not in a casual
manner. Whether there exist any "special and adequate
reasons" would depend upon a variety of factors and the peculiar
facts and circumstances of each case. No hard and fast rule of
universal application can be laid down in that behalf.
D 10. In view of the position in law indicated above, the
judgment of the High Court reducing the sentence to 7 years is·
clearly unsustainable and is set aside. The sentence of 10 years .~ .
as imposed by the trial Court is restored.
11. The appeal is allowed.
E
N.J. Appeal allowed.

,L

•