Supreme Court of India
BALDEV SINGH & ORS. versus STATE OF PUNJAB
- Decided
- 22 February 2011
- Judges listed
- MARKANDEY KATJU, GYAN SUDHA MISRA
- Disposal
- Disposed off
Citations
- Official
- [2011] 15 S.C.R. 927 · 2011 INSC 149
Cited by
We found no other Supreme Court judgment we hold that cites this one.
Counted only in the Supreme Court judgments we hold whose text we could read, not in High Court judgments. We match each citation to a judgment automatically, so a citation we cannot match is not counted. "Cited" says only that a judgment refers to this one, not whether it followed, distinguished or overruled it.
The Court's text
Paragraphs from our copy of the Supreme Court Reports print, with the Court's own paragraph numbers, the printed page and, where printed, the margin letter. The Court did not number this judgment's paragraphs, so they are listed by page. Paragraph numbering in our copy is uncertain (unnumbered_in_numbered_era). Link to paragraph N with #para-N.
This appeal has been filed against the impugned judgment dated 27.04.2005 IN CRLA No. 242 of 1999 of the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh.
p. 928, margin A
The facts of the case have been set out in the judgment of the High Court and hence we are not repeating the same here, except where necessary.
p. 928, margin A
The prosecution case is that on 03.03.1997 at about 6.30 AM. the prosecutrix was coming to her house after answering the call of nature. The three appellants caught her and took her into a house and raped her and beat her. After police investigation the appellants were charge sheeted, and after a trial were convicted under Section 376 (2) (g) and Section 342 l.P.C. and sentenced to 10 years R.I. and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- each. The sentence was upheld by the High Court, and hence this appeal.
p. 928, margin A
Admittedly the appellants have already undergone, about 3 and = years imprisonment each. The incident is 14 years old. The appellants and the prosecutrix are married (not to each other). The prosecutrix has also two children. An application and affidavit has been filed before us stating that the parties want to finish the dispute, have entered into a compromise on 01.09.2007, and that the accused may be acquitted and now there is no misunderstanding between them.
p. 928, margin D
Section 376 is a non compoundable offence, However, the fact that the incident is an old one, is a circumstance for invoking the proviso to Section 376 (2) (g) and awarding a sentence less than 10 years, which is ordinarily the minimum sentence under that provision, as we think that there are adequate and special reasons for doing so.
p. 928, margin F
On the facts of the case, considering that the incident happened in the year 1997 and that the partie~ have themselves entered into a compromise, we uphold the conviction of the appellant but we reduce the sentence to the period of sentence already undergone in view of the provi$o to Section 376 (2) (g) which for adequate and special reasons permits imposition of A a lesser sentence. However,. we direct that each of the appellant will pay a sum of Rupees 50,000/- by way of enhancement of fine to the victim envisaged under Section 376 of the IPC itself. The fine shall be paid within three months from today. In the event of failure to pay the enhanced amount of fine B it will be recovered as arrears of land revenue and will be given to the victim.
pp. 928–929, margin G
The appeal is disposed off. N.J. Appeal disposed of.
p. 929