Proviso To Section 376 IPC Allows Sentence Below Statutory Minimum Where Adequate And Special Reasons Exist: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court upheld the conviction of Satish Kumar under Sections 451 (trespass), 376 (rape), and 506 (criminal intimidation) IPC, but reduced his sentence under Section 376 IPC to the period already undergone (3 years). The Court cited the appellant's young age at the time of the incident, the passage of 17 years since the offence, his lack of prior criminal record, and the prosecutrix’s pardon as adequate and special reasons under the proviso to Section 376 IPC.

The appellant, Satish Kumar, was convicted by the Trial Court for committing rape, trespassing into the victim’s room, and threatening her with death. The incident occurred on September 21, 2007, when the appellant forcibly entered the prosecutrix’s room, gagged her, and committed the crime despite her resistance.

The Trial Court sentenced the appellant to rigorous imprisonment of 7 years under Section 376 IPC, 3 years under Section 506 IPC, and 1 year under Section 451 IPC, with sentences to run concurrently. The appellant challenged the conviction and sought leniency in sentencing on grounds of his young age, lack of criminal antecedents, and passage of time since the offence.

The High Court reaffirmed the principle that the sole testimony of a prosecutrix, if credible and trustworthy, is sufficient to convict an accused in cases of sexual offences. Referring to Ganesan v. State [(2020) 10 SCC 573], the Court observed:

“A victim’s evidence should not be equated with that of an accomplice. If found reliable, her testimony alone is enough to sustain a conviction.”

Despite minor inconsistencies in her statements, the Court deemed the prosecutrix’s testimony consistent and credible, corroborated by medical evidence and the immediate alarm she raised post-incident.

The appellant argued that the absence of an FSL report and other investigative lapses rendered the case doubtful. However, the Court, relying on Dhanraj Singh v. State of Punjab [(2004) SC], held that:

“Defective investigation cannot absolve the accused if there is sufficient evidence to prove guilt.”

The prosecutrix’s testimony and medical examination outweighed the defects in investigation.

The Court noted that Section 376 IPC (unamended) prescribed a minimum sentence of 7 years, but its proviso allowed for lesser punishment if adequate and special reasons existed. Referring to Baldev Singh v. State of Punjab [(2011) 13 SCC 705] and Puran Singh v. State (NCT) of Delhi [(2010) Del HC], the Court observed:

“The young age of the appellant, lack of criminal antecedents, and significant passage of time since the offence can justify leniency in sentencing under the proviso.”

The appellant was 20 years old at the time of the incident, had already undergone 3 years of incarceration, and his jail conduct was satisfactory.

The prosecutrix’s affidavit, filed in 2011, stated that she had forgiven the appellant. While pardon by a victim does not absolve the crime, it was considered a relevant mitigating factor influencing the Court’s decision on sentencing.

The High Court upheld the conviction under Sections 451, 376, and 506 IPC. However, it reduced the appellant’s sentence under Section 376 IPC to the period already undergone (3 years). The sentences under Sections 451 and 506 IPC (1 year and 3 years, respectively) were left undisturbed but were deemed served as the appellant had already completed 3 years of incarceration.

The Court canceled the bail bonds and discharged the surety, directing the judgment to be communicated to the Trial Court and Jail Superintendent.

Sole Testimony of Prosecutrix: Conviction can be based solely on the prosecutrix’s testimony if it is credible and inspires confidence.
Proviso to Section 376 IPC: Courts can reduce the statutory minimum sentence of 7 years if adequate and special reasons exist.
Victim’s Pardon: While not absolving guilt, a victim’s pardon may be considered as a mitigating factor during sentencing.
Defective Investigation: Procedural lapses in investigation do not negate credible evidence establishing the guilt of the accused.
 

Date of Decision: December 13, 2024