Date:06/10/2005 URL: http://www.thehindu.com/2005/10/06/stories/2005100604340900.htm

National

Viewing rape lightly is an affront to society: Court

Legal Correspondent

High Court reducing jail term from 10 years to nine and half months is illegal

Not awarding just punishment may provoke retaliation in kind

Meagre sentence will be counter-productive

NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court has expressed concern that inadequate punishments are being awarded by the sessions and High Courts to rapists.

The courts should keep in mind the plight of the victim and also the social stigma, which might practically ruin all prospects of a normal life. Rape "is a particularly heinous crime, a crime against society, a crime against human dignity, one that reduces a man to an animal. To view such an offence once it is proved, lightly, is itself an affront to society, " said a three-judge Bench, comprising Chief Justice R.C. Lahoti and Justices G.P. Mathur and P.K. Balasubramanyan, in two separate but concurring judgments.

The judges said: "The rationale behind advocating the award of a punishment commensurate with the gravity of the offence and its impact on society is to ensure that a civilised society does not revert to the days of `an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.' Not awarding a just punishment might provoke the victim or relatives to retaliate in kind, and that is what exactly is sought to be prevented by the criminal justice system."

Quoting an apex court ruling, the Bench said: "Any liberal attitude by imposing meagre sentences or [by] taking too sympathetic [a] view merely on account of lapse of time in respect of such offences will result-wise be counter-productive in the long run and against societal interest."

M.P. appeal allowed

The Bench allowed an appeal by the State Government against the reduction by the Madhya Pradesh High Court of a 10-year jail term awarded to a rape convict to a mere nine and half months.

"The High Court in the impugned August 7, 2003 order has awarded a sentence which is not only grossly inadequate but is also contrary to [the] provisions of law. The reduction of the term without any satisfactory reason is clearly illegal."

The Bench said: "Since the High court order is not in accordance with the law, we have no option but to set aside the same and to remit the matter back to the High Court for a fresh consideration of the appeal."