A B STATE OF M.P v. BABLU NATT

to the quantum of sentence in terms of s.376 IPC was A primarily challenged in the present ap~eal. Consequently a question arose as regards the apphcabillty of proviso to s.376 IPC in the facts and circumstances of the case. Allowing the appeal, the Court HELD:1. The principle governing imposition of B punishment would depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case. An offence which affects the morale of the society should be severely dealt with. Socio-economic status, religion, race, caste or creed of the accused and the victim although may not be wholly c irrelevant, should be eschewed in a case of this nature, particularly when Parliament itself had laid down minimum sentence. [Para 13] [1104-B-C] State of Punjab vs. Prem Sagar & Others. (2008) 7 SCC 550, referred to.

#2. One of the principles that the judiciary had all along kept in its mind that rape being a violation with the private person of a woman causes mental scar, thus, not only a physical injury but a deep sense of some deathless shame is also inflicted. [Para 14] [1105-E] Mohan Anna Chavan vs. State of Maharashtra (2008) 9 SCALE 474 and Bantu vs. The State of U.P. (2008) 10 SCALE 336, relied on. D E

3.1. In the present case, the prosecutrix and the respondent were unknown to each other and came to F know each other only on the incident night. A finding of fact had been arrived at that the prosecutrix was minor . The fact that the prosecutrix was subjected to sexual intercourse was supported by medical examination. Medical opinion was rendered that rape was committed on her and she was not habituated to sexual intercourse. G On medical examination, the age of the prosecutrix was assessed between 11 and 13 years. [Para 1 O] [1102-F-H] 3.2. The offence with which respondent was charged had been proved to have been committed. Besides, Respondent also got an affidavit affirmed by the H , ) ., \ 1098 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2008] 17 S.C.R. A prosecut.rix showing her age to be 18 years, which was found to be false. He, therefore, knew the intricacies of law. [Para 12] [1104-A] D

#4. The imposition of minimum sentence having been brought about by an amendment in the statute, the court B should always bear in mind the effect thereof. The ·power conferred on the court to impose a sentence less than the minimum prescribed must not only be supported by any reason but adequate and special reasons ought to be men~ioned therefor. The High Court did not do so. It c is difficult to comprehend as to on what materials the High Court opined that 'she was a sensible girl having age of 15 years, she did not complain to anybody and lived for several days with respondent at Chhatarpur'. The fact that the prosecutrix was a minor and subjected to rape and furthermore as according to her, she was compelled to live for several days with the respondent as he would not listen to her plea of taking her to her father was lost sight of by the High Court. The affidavit affirmed by her was found to have been obtained without her knowing the contents thereof and at the instance of respondent. The very fact that she was made to state that her age was 18 years and she was living with the respondent as a wife clearly goes to show the mental trauma which she was undergoing. Therefore, the contents of the said affidavit were wrongly used for imposing a sentence less than minimum prescribed sentence considering the same to be mitigating factor. It was a case where the minimum sentence, to say the least, could be imposed. [Paras 18 and 19] [1108-E-F; 1109-F- H; 1110-A-C] E F G