The Supreme Court on Wednesday has dismissed an appeal against the conviction and Sentence by a man accused for raping a 6-year-old girl while rejecting the contention, accused is one handed and physically impossible to rape.
The Supreme Court noted that both the Courts below have recorded the argument of the accused that he has only one hand, as a result of which it would be physically impossible to have committed an act of rape. “Both courts have dealt with this aspect of the case and we agree with them-there is no such impossibility,” said the three-judge bench headed by Justice Rohinton F. Nariman, Justice Navin Sinha & Justice K. M. Joseph.
The Court pronounced its order on the appeal filed by a man accused and convicted for raping a minor 6-year-old girl. The trial court had convicted the accused under section 376 IPC and sentenced him rigorous imprisonment for seven years and a fine of Rs 1 lac to be paid to the Victim.
During the previous hearing of a matter on 04/12/2020, before the Supreme Court, the Court pointed out that under Section 376(2)(f) the minimum punishment is 10 years. The Counsel appearing for the accused pointed out that the charge was only under Section 376(1) and not under Section 376(2). Following which the Court had directed him to produce the order where charges have been framed.
Today, the Supreme Court records that the charge was not only under Section 376(1) but was under Section 376, which includes Section 376(2). “Be that as it may, we find that there is concurrent finding of the fact that the victim, who was only 6 years old, was raped by the petitioner. Quite apart from the victims testimony, there is also the testimony of her mother, who was an eye witness to the incident,” said the Supreme Court.
It further held, “however, considering that the State has not filed an appeal and that the incident has taken place 20 years ago, we dismiss the special leave petition, without going into Section 376(2) and whether a case is made out on facts for reducing the minimum punishment of 10 years.”
The High Court had observed in its order,
“A rapist not only violates the victim’s privacy and personal integrity, but inevitably causes serious psychological as well as physical harm in the process. Rape is not merely a physical assault. It is often destructive of the whole personality of the victim. A murderer destroys the physical body of the victim. A rapist degrades the very soul of the helpless female. The courts should not get swayed by minor contradictions or insignificant discrepancies in the statement of the prosecutrix, which are not of a fatal nature, to throw out an otherwise reliable prosecution and if the evidence of the prosecutrix inspires confidence, it must be reliable upon without seeking corroboration of her statement in material particulars and there was no apparent reason for PW1 and PW2 to falsely implicate the accused.”
“By the very nature of the offence, it is an obnoxious act of the highest order. Both the courts below on proper appreciation of the entire materials available on records held that the charge under Section 376 IPC is proved as against the accused and hence, the conviction and sentence of rigorous imprisonment for seven years and the compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- ordered under Section 376 IPC can be sustained,”
-said the High Court while dismissing the appeal.
Also Read: Elderly can’t use Senior Citizens Act to evict daughter-in-law, says Supreme Court
Read the judgment;
Seelan-Vs-The-Inspector-of-Police
Comments are closed.