THE INDIAN LAW INSTITUTELL.M. (Two Year Course)Wednesday Seminar XII(01.04.2015)(2:30pm to 4:45pm)Ravindra v. State of Madhya Pradesh[footnoteRef:2] [2: Special leave petition No. 1410 of 2013 (Arising out of Criminal Appeal No. 1275 of 1997), decided on12.03.2013.]

I FACTSTHE PRESENT appeal was filed in the Supreme Court by way of special leave petition against the final judgment and order of the high court of Judicature at Madhya Pradesh. The appellant had filed an appeal in the high court against the judgment of trial court convicting him under section 376(1) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and sentenced him to 10 years rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 2000/-, and in default of payment of fine, 6 months simple imprisonment. The high court upheld the conviction and the sentence awarded to the appellant by the trial court. Aggrieved by the order of the high court the present appeal was filed before the Supreme Court of India. The case was decided by the two judge bench of the Supreme Court. In the present appeal, the Supreme Court has examined, inter alia, the question as to whether the case falls under proviso to section 376 (1) IPC, to award a lesser sentence for adequate and special reason.II JUDGMENTAlthough the Supreme Court upheld the conviction of the appellant but reduced the sentence to the period already undergone by the appellant by holding that the case of the appellant is a fit case for invoking the proviso to section 376(2) (g)[footnoteRef:3]of IPC for awarding lesser sentence.[footnoteRef:4] The adequate and special reasons stated by the court are, firstly, that the incident is 20 years old, secondly, that the parties are married (not to each other) and, lastly, that the parties have entered into a compromise. The bench relied on the judgment inBaldev Singh v. State of Punjab[footnoteRef:5],which was held not a precedent by a three judge bench inShimbhu v. State of Haryana.[footnoteRef:6] In the present case, the Supreme Court has also upheld the observations of the high court that the testimony of the prosecutrix requires no further corroboration. [3: Legislature through the Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, 2013 has deleted this proviso.] [4: Although the facts of the case reveal that the case falls within ambit of section 376 (1), the Supreme Court has erroneously invoked the proviso to section 376 (2).] [5: (2011) 13 SCC 705.] [6: Criminal Appeal Nos. 1278-1279 of 2013 (Arising out of S.L.P. (Crl.) Nos. 1011-1012 of 2012. Three Judge Bench of the Supreme Court inShimbhu v. State of Haryanaafter considering Baldev Singh, held that-In Baldev Singh v. State of Punjab, though courts below awarded a sentence of ten years, taking note of the facts that the occurrence was 14 years old, the appellants therein had undergone about 3 1/2 years of imprisonment, the prosecutrix and the appellants married (not to each other) and entered into a compromise, this Court, while considering peculiar circumstances, reduced the sentence to the period already undergone, but enhanced the fine from Rs. 1,000/- to Rs. 50,000/-. In the light of series of decisions, taking contrary view, we hold that the said decision inBaldev Singh cannot be cited as a precedent and it should be confined to that case.]

III ISSUES1. Whether the factors like long pendency of criminal trial or compromise reached between the parties or marriage of the parties hold any relevance in sentencing in rape cases? Can such reasons be treated as special and adequate reason to exercise the discretion under proviso to section 376 (1) and (2)?2. Having overlooked the judgement of a larger bench has the Supreme Court in the instant case, committed judicial impropriety and indiscipline and thwarted the doctrine of stare decisis? Do you think, the matter should been referred to the larger bench for reconsideration in case of any disagreement?3. Whether the court was justified in holding the accused liable on the sole testimony of the prosecutrix, given the fact that it has minor contradictions and is not corroborated by other prosecution witnesses?

Suggested Readings:1. Ravindra v. State of Madhya Pradesh, Special leave petition No. 1410 of 2013 (Arising out of Criminal Appeal No. 1275 of 1997), decided on 12.03.2013.2. Shimbhu v. State of Haryana, AIR 2014 SC 739.3. Baldev Singh v. State of Punjab, (2011) 13 SCC 705.4. M. A. Rashid, Two Judge Bench (SC) Lets off Rapist with the sentence already undergone citing a Judgment which was held as no longer a precedent by Three Judge Bench available at http://www.livelaw.in/breaking-two-judge-bench-sc-lets-off-rapist-sentence-already-undergone-citing-judgment-held-no-longer-precedent-three-judge-bench/, (visited on 19th march, 2015).