SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Before:- Dr. A.S. Anand, C.J. and S. Rajendra Babu, JJ.

Criminal Appeal No. 2064 of 1996. D/d. 24.2.2000.

Sukhwinder Singh - Appellant

Versus

State of Punjab - Respondent

Indian Penal Code, 1860, Section 376 proviso - Rape - Sentence - "Adequate and special reasons" for imposing less than 7 years' imprisonment - Compromise petition filed by the parties before High Court - Amounts to adequate and special reason for the purposes of the proviso - While maintaining the conviction of the appellant under Sections 363/366 sentence reduced under the proviso to Section 376 to the period already undergone by the accused.

[Para ]

ORDER

Dr. A.S. Anand, C.J. - This appeal is directed against the judgment of the High Court, dated 23-5-1996, dismissing the appeal filed by the appellant against his conviction and sentence for an offence under Sections 363/366 and 376 Indian Penal Code, as recorded by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Patiala. The High Court has noticed that the prosecutrix was a consenting party to the act of sexual intercourse and that she had willingly left her parents' house to be with the appellant. She was, however, found to be "not more than 16 years of age" and on that account, the High Court upheld the conviction of the appellant.

2. During the pendency of the proceedings in the High Court, the prosecutrix and the appellant appear to have compromised and a compromise petition was duly filed in the Court. In the compromise petition, the prosecutrix has stated that she and the appellant belonged to neighbouring villages and she had since got married and that "she does not want that she should be put to further ignominy on account of this episode. She wants to put an end to the matter and settle happily with her husband".

3. The learned Single Judge of the High Court noticed the compromise as also the attendant facts of the case i.e. that the prosecutrix was a consenting party, but expressed helplessness in the matter of awarding of sentence on the ground that under Section 376 Indian Penal Code, the sentence to be awarded could not be less than seven years. It appears that the High Court overlooked the proviso to Section 376 Indian Penal Code, which reads thus:

"Provided that the court may, for adequate and special reasons to be mentioned in the judgment, impose a sentence of imprisonment for a term of less than seven years."

4. That the prosecutrix has since got married and she did not want the matter to be carried any further so as to lead a happy and healthy married life with her husband and had filed the compromise petition to that effect was an adequate and special reason to invoke the proviso (supra). While maintaining the conviction, the High Court ought to have for the reasons aforesaid, reduced the sentence to the period already undergone by the appellant. Such a course was in the interest of the prosecutrix herself.

5. In the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case, as noticed above, in our opinion, this matter should be now given a quietus particularly, when the alleged offence is stated to have taken place almost a decade ago.

6. We, therefore, while maintaining the conviction of the appellant for the offences as recorded by the courts below, reduce the sentence to the period already undergone by him. The appellant is on bail. His bail bonds shall stand discharged.

7. The appeal is disposed of accordingly.

Appeal disposed of.