STATE OF M.P v. MADAN LAL

A B [2015] 7 S.C.R. 998 STATE OF M.P. v. MADAN LAL (Criminal Appeal No.231of2015) JULY01, 2015 [DIPAK MISRA AND PRAFULLA C. PANT, JJ.] c Penal Code, 1860 - s. 376(2)(f) rw s. 511 ands. 354 - Rape - Prosecution case that accused raped a seven year old girl- Conviction uls. 376(2)(f) rw s. 511 and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for five years - High Court in view of compromise between the accused and the parents of the o victim, converted the offence to one u/s. 354 and confined the sentence to the period of custody already undergone - On appeal, held: In a case of rape or attempt of rape, there cannot be a compromise or settlement as it would be against the honour of the victim which matters the most - These are E crimes against the body of a woman which is her own temple - These offences suffocate the breath of life and sully the reputation -Adopting a soft approach or a liberal one would be a spectacular error - Any kind of liberal approach or thought of mediation is completely sans legal permissibility F - Matter remitted back to the High Court for a fresh decision. Judicial Deprecation - Rape cases - Some of the appellate judges, contrary to the precedents and against the normative mandate of law, assuming a presumptuous role - It ruptures the sense of justice and punctures the criminal justice dispensation system. Partly allowing the appeal, the Court HELD: 1.1 Appellate Judges, contrary to the 998 G H STATE OF M.P. v. MADAN LAL 999 precedents and against the normative mandate of law, A assuming a presumptuous role have paved the path of unbelievable laconicity to deal with criminal appeals which, ruptures the sense of justice and punctures the criminal justice dispensation system. [Para 11] [1005-G; 1006-A] B

1.2 The Single Judge did not at all referred to the evidence that was adduced during the trial. The Single Judge in his judgment has only stated that the prosecution has examined so many witnesses and filed c nine documents. Th~ said approach does not satisfy the requirement of exercise of the appellate jurisdiction. The Single Judge was influenced by the compromise that was entered into between the accused and the parents of the victim as the victim was a minor. The trial judge D had rejected the said application on the ground that the offence was not compoundable. [Paras 14, 15] [1008-E- G; 1009-A-C] Amar Singh v. Ba/winder Singh and Others 2003 (1) SCR E