Question

This is bizarre ,” that is how people reacted to a recent Supreme Court judgment

endorsing a bit of leniency by courts while sentencing a woman convicted of a

crime.

The woman was convicted for helping her male accomplice drug , assault and rob

another man of Rs 27,000 in august 2000 . She was convicted in March 2003. The

trial court found that she had to support three minor children ,to of whom were of

unsound mind . Though the law provided a punishment of up to 10 year in prison, a

lenient trial court awarded just two years jail term to her.

If the trial court took one step in leniency , the high court took two. It erased the jail

term and imposed a fine of Rs 30,000, to be given to the victim of robbery. The SC

said in the Indian context, a bit of leniency for women convicts was acceptable. But

it ruled that discretion to award lenient sentences to female convicts could not be so

stark as to appear as discriminating against male convicts.

i) The passage talks about a male convict. ( True / False )

ii) The accused was convicted …………. ( Tick the correct option )

a) once b) thrice c) twice d) four times

P.T.O iii) The respective courts were …………. with her .( Tick the correct option )

a) harsh

b) lenient

c) hard

d) intolerant

iv) They were moved by her family condition . ( True / False )

v) But the SC accepted the leniency fully . ( True / False )
​

Answer 1

(i) False

(ii) (c) twice

(iii) (b) lenient

(iv) False

(v) False

☆ Hope it's help you... ☆