G. P. Mathur, J. - (1.) DELAY in filing the special leave petition is condoned.
(2.) LEAVE granted. This appeal has been preferred by the State of M. P. against the judgment and order dated 27.9.2003 of Justice N. S. Azad of M. P. High Court in Crl. Appeal No. 255 of 1999. The trial court convicted the accused under Section 376, I.P.C. He was awarded a sentence of 7 years R.I. The High Court partly allowed the appeal and while upholding the conviction of the accused, reduced the sentence to the period already undergone which is nearly 3 years.
(3.) LEARNED counsel for the appellant has submitted that the sentence imposed by the High Court is wholly inadequate looking to the nature of the offence and is contrary to the minimum prescribed by law. Sub-section (1) of Section 376, I.P.C. provides that whoever, except in the cases provided for by sub-section (2), commits rape shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which shall not be less than 7 years but which may be for life or for a term which may extend to 10 years and shall also be liable to fine. In the category of cases covered under sub-section (2) of Section 376, the sentence cannot be less than 10 years but which may be for life and shall also be liable to fine. The proviso appended to sub-section (1) lays down 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 7 years. There is a similar proviso to sub-section (2) which empowers the Court to award a sentence of less than 10 years for adequate and special reasons to be mentioned in the judgment. The High Court in the impugned order has awarded a sentence which is not only grossly inadequate but is also contrary to express provision of law. The High Court has not assigned any satisfactory reason much less adequate and special reasons for reducing the sentence to a term which is far below the prescribed minimum. Therefore, the sentence awarded by the High Court is clearly illegal.;