Mandatory minimum sentencing for child rape cannot be reduced without genuinely special and adequate reasons.

For rape of a girl below twelve years, the statutory minimum sentence of ten years rigorous imprisonment could be departed from only for adequate and special reasons recorded in the judgment. The High Court's reliance on the accused's age, family circumstances, illiteracy, alleged intoxication, and social background was insufficient to justify reduction below that minimum. The trial court's sentence was supported by the victim's age, the cruel nature of the offence, and the absence of mitigating factors. The reduction to four years was therefore set aside and the original ten-year sentence restored, while the conviction, fine, and default sentence were left undisturbed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the High Court was justified in reducing the sentence imposed for rape of a girl below twelve years of age from the statutory minimum of ten years to four years by invoking the proviso to Section 376(2) of the Indian Penal Code.

Analysis: The statutory scheme mandated a minimum sentence of ten years rigorous imprisonment for rape of a woman below twelve years of age, with departure below that minimum permitted only for adequate and special reasons to be recorded in the judgment. The proviso could not be invoked casually, and the sentencing court was required to respect the legislative mandate in cases of this nature. The reasons relied upon by the High Court, including age, family circumstances, illiteracy, alleged intoxication, and social background of the accused, were held to be irrelevant or insufficient to justify a sentence below the prescribed minimum. In contrast, the Trial Court had given cogent reasons for imposing the statutory minimum, including the age of the victim, the cruel nature of the act, and the absence of mitigating circumstances.

Conclusion: The High Court was not justified in reducing the sentence below the statutory minimum, and the reduction to four years rigorous imprisonment was set aside in favour of restoration of the original sentence of ten years rigorous imprisonment.

Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded, the conviction was maintained, and the sentence for rape was enhanced to the statutory minimum while the fine and default sentence were left undisturbed.

Ratio Decidendi: In prosecutions for rape of a child below twelve years, a sentence below the statutory minimum can be imposed only for genuinely special and adequate reasons, and considerations unrelated to the gravity of the offence or the victim's vulnerability cannot justify reduction below that minimum.

---