STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH Vs. SANTOSH KUMAR
LAWS(SC)-2006-7-4
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Decided on July 14,2006

STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH Appellant
VERSUS
SANTOSH KUMAR Respondents


Referred Judgements :-

MAHESH S/O RAM NARAIN AND OTHERS V STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH [REFERRED TO]
SEVAKA PERUMAL VS. STATE OF TAMIL NADU [REFERRED TO]
DHANANJOY CHATTERJEE ALIAS DHANA VS. STATE OF WEST BENGAL [REFERRED TO]
RAVJI ALIAS RAM CHANDRA VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH VS. BABBU BARKARE alias DALAP SINGH [REFERRED TO]



Cited Judgements :-

MOHD ALAM VS. STATE NCT OF DELHI [LAWS(DLH)-2006-9-131] [RELIED ON]
PRADEEP KUMAR VS. GOVT OF NCT DELHI [LAWS(DLH)-2010-2-161] [REFERRED TO]
TAMOK KOMUT VS. STATE OF ARUNACHAL PRADESH [LAWS(GAU)-2008-5-22] [REFERRED TO]
KHUSHAL VS. STATE OF M P [LAWS(MPH)-2006-9-39] [RELIED ON]
ELLUMALAI VS. STATE OF TAMIL NADU [LAWS(MAD)-2007-11-370] [REFERRED TO]
NITIN PANDIT SAPKAR VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [LAWS(BOM)-2008-10-145] [REFERRED TO]
MOHD ALAM VS. STATE NCT OF DELHI [LAWS(DLH)-2006-10-78] [REFERRED TO]
KHEM CHAND VS. STATE OF DELHI [LAWS(DLH)-2008-7-143] [REFERRED TO]
STATE, REP BY INSPECTOR OF POLICE VS. Y.AJITH [LAWS(MAD)-2013-2-9] [REFERRED TO]
GOPAL MADHUKAR BOMBATKAR VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [LAWS(BOM)-2014-4-118] [REFERRED TO]
PUSI VS. STATE OF U.P. [LAWS(UTN)-2010-4-41] [REFERRED TO]
BHIKHABHAI KUNVERBHAI VAGHARI VS. STATE OF GUJARAT [LAWS(GJH)-2007-2-151] [REFERRED TO]
AJAY NAINSINGH DANTANIA VS. STATE OF GUJARAT [LAWS(GJH)-2007-3-263] [REFERRED TO]
HUKAM CHAND VS. STATE & ORS [LAWS(DLH)-2016-7-123] [REFERRED TO]
LALITA KUMARI VS. GOVERNMENT OF U P [LAWS(SC)-2012-2-42] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF RAJASTHAN VS. VINOD KUMAR [LAWS(SC)-2012-5-51] [REFERRED TO]
HARPREET SINGH VS. STATE OF DELHI [LAWS(DLH)-2012-8-222] [REFERRED TO]
RATILAL LALJIBHAI VS. STATE OF GUJARAT [LAWS(GJH)-2006-12-150] [REFERRED]
BHIKHABHAI LAXMANBHAI KHARVA VS. STATE OF GUJARAT [LAWS(GJH)-2007-2-271] [REFERRED]
RAMJEE LAL VS. STATE (GOVT OF NCT) DELHI [LAWS(DLH)-2017-5-131] [REFERRED TO]
DR. SHRADDHA AGRAWAL VS. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH [LAWS(MPH)-2017-11-84] [REFERRED TO]
SURVIR @ TENTA @ GOVIND VS. STATE OF U.P. [LAWS(ALL)-2018-2-64] [REFERRED TO]
AMIT KUMAR VS. STATE OF U P [LAWS(ALL)-2018-1-213] [REFERRED TO]
RAJ VEER & ANOTHER VS. STATE OF U P [LAWS(ALL)-2018-1-214] [REFERRED TO]
INDORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY VS. SHAILENDRA [LAWS(SC)-2018-2-88] [REFERRED TO]
SALIK RAM VS. STATE OF U P [LAWS(ALL)-2018-2-496] [REFERRED TO]
SALIK RAM VS. STATE OF U P [LAWS(ALL)-2018-2-496] [REFERRED TO]
RAM AWADH VS. STATE OF U P [LAWS(ALL)-2018-3-323] [REFERRED TO]
MOOL CHAND VS. STATE [LAWS(DLH)-2017-5-313] [REFERRED TO]
BITTAN BAI PAUL VS. THE STATE OF M.P. [LAWS(MPH)-2018-8-250] [REFERRED TO]
SURENDRA VS. STATE OF U.P. [LAWS(ALL)-2019-12-124] [REFERRED TO]
LAL MOHAMMED VS. STATE [LAWS(DLH)-2020-1-101] [REFERRED TO]
MD JAMAL VS. STATE OF WEST BENGAL [LAWS(CAL)-2021-1-37] [REFERRED TO]
PATAN JAMAL VALI VS. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH [LAWS(SC)-2021-4-32] [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

Arijit Pasayat, J. - (1.)Leave granted.
(2.)A six years old child was subjected to sexual abuse by the respondent. He faced trial for alleged commission of offences punishable under Section 376(2)(f) and Section 342 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short the IPC). The trial court found respondent guilty of the offences for the offence punishable under Section 376(2)(f), IPC, respondent was sentenced to undergo imprisonment for 10 years R.I. with a fine of Rs.500/- with default stipulation. He was further sentenced to undergo imprisonment of three months for the offence punishable in terms of Section 342, IPC. Both the substantive sentences of imprisonment were ordered to run concurrently. In the appeal filed before the High Court the accused did not question the conviction, but prayed for reduction in sentence. The High Court reduced the sentence for the offence punishable under Section 376(2)(f), IPC to 5 years, while maintaining the sentence in respect of other offence. The State of Madhya Pradesh has questioned correctness of the judgment on the ground that the reduction in sentence was clearly uncalled for. The only ground indicated by the High Court to reduce the sentence was the young age of the accused and he being member of the Scheduled Tribe. Learned counsel for the appellant-State submitted that the reduction of sentence as done by learned Single Judge is contrary to law as laid down by this Court in several cases. While dealing with the offence of rape which was established, the direction for reduction of sentence should not have been given on the specious reasonings indicated above.
(3.)There is no appearance on behalf of the respondent in spite of service of notice.
;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.