The Allahabad High Court has held that the scale of punishment in a rape case cannot depend on the social status of the victim or the accused. It should depend on the conduct of the accused, the condition of the sexually assaulted woman, age and the gravity of the criminal act.
The Division Bench of Justice Suneet Kumar and Justice Om Prakash Tripathi passed this order while hearing a criminal appeal filed by Bhura.
The appellant has preferred the criminal appeal aggrieved by judgment and order dated 21.12.2013 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, District- Meerut, in Session Trial (State Vs. Bhura @ Bhure) arising out of Case under Section 376G and 506 IPC, Police Station- Daurala, District- Meerut, convicting and sentencing the appellant to undergo imprisonment for life under Section 376G IPC with a fine of Rs 5000, in default of payment of fine to undergo one year additional imprisonment and one year rigorous imprisonment for an offence punishable under Section 506 IPC with a file of Rs 1000 in default of payment of fine two month additional imprisonment.
The case of ‘Juvenile’ was separated and matter has been sent to Juvenile Justice Board for trial.
The prosecution case is as follows:
On March 3, 2009 at around 9 pm, ‘P’ (daughter of complainant), aged about 14 years, went to attend the call of nature in the vacant residence of M.D.A, where ‘Juvenile’ and Bhura S/o Virendra, R/o Village- Palhaida came there and forcibly picked up complainant’s daughter by holding her face and took her to the fields and after making her inhale intoxicant material, raped her forcibly. On hearing the noise of the victim, Roshan S/o Samay Singh and Santari W/o Rajkumar went towards the fields then both the accused ran away threatening that if they told anyone, they would be killed.
On the basis of the written report, the police registered a Case under Sections 376, 506 IPC against accused ‘Juvenile’ and Bhura. Investigation of the case was taken over by Sub-Inspector Alok Kumar Sharma. Site inspection was prepared by the investigator, the relevant documents were recorded in the case diary and recorded the statements of the witnesses.
After completing the investigation, Investigating Officer has filed charge sheet against ‘Juvenile’ and Bhura, under Section 376, 506 IPC Cognizance was taken by the Chief Judicial Magistrate and committed to the court of sessions on June 29, 2021 for trial and thereafter the said sessions trial has been transferred to the court of Additional Sessions Judge, Meerut for trial.
Also read: Allahabad High Court stays arrest of minor caught with beef in Kaushambi
Charge under Sections 376G and 506 IPC has been framed by Additional Sessions Judge, Meerut. Charge was denied by the accused Bhura @ Bhure. The accused appellant pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
In statement under Section 313 CrPC, the accused stated that he had had a love marriage with the aunt of the victim due to this enmity he was falsely implicated in this case.
The Court said that the main question is that whether accused Bhura @ Bhure has committed rape with prosecutrix on March 3, 2009 at 9 pm when she had gone to attend nature’s call.
The Court noted that,
In FIR the age of the prosecutrix has been stated as 14 years, after medical examination the age of the prosecutrix was found at 16 years.
Prosecutrix had deposed in her statement on oath that she knows accused Bhura @ Bhure who is her neighbour. Incident took place prior four years at about 9 pm, she went for nature’s call in the vacant house of M.D.A then Rahul and Bhura came there and by holding her face took her to the field and after subjecting her to the smell of intoxicant material raped her forcefully. Rape was committed by both the accused. She was unable to oppose them due to intoxication, she made noise then they threatened her and if this fact was told to anyone then she shall be killed.
Also read: Indian nurse, awarded death sentence in Yemen, moves Delhi High Court for help to return
After hearing the scream of prosecutrix, her maternal uncle Roshan and Mausi Santari came on the spot and took her home. She told them about the incident committed by the accused.
Her statement was also recorded before the Magistrate. She narrated the entire story before the court. Witness has also proved the statement under Section 164 CrPC. This witness was not cross examined by the defence despite ample opportunity, consequently the cross examination of the witness was closed by the court. As the statement of witness is not rebutted by the defence so the evidence is admissible and relevant for the disposal of the case.
The Court observed that,
From the perusal of the record, it appears that in this case defence counsel had cross examined the prosecution witnesses but the counsel for defence had not cross examined some witnesses after being given ample opportunity. He had not also participated in the argument knowingly with intent to delay the trial. It is also praiseworthy that the prosecutrix had fully supported the prosecution version even after marriage. Such sort of courage is appreciated. Her evidence is like an injured witness and is fully credible and trustworthy supported by medical evidence.
We do place confidence in the deposition of the mother of the prosecutrix and prosecutrix. FIR was promptly lodged on the next day from the date of incident, there is no grudge to falsely implicate the accused appellant. On the basis of fully reliable evidence prosecution has proved beyond reasonable doubt that accused Bhura @ Bhure has committed rape with prosecutrix on March 3, 2009 at 9 pm. Thus the trial court had rightly held the accused guilty for the charges under Section 376(G) and 506 I.P.C.
The counsel for appellant submitted that at the time of incident the accused was 19 years of age, he is a labourer and is in incarceration for about 13 years and at present he is 32 years. He is married. Prosecutrix has also married and is living a peaceful happy married life.
Counsel for the appellant relied on Dinesh @ Buddha Vs State of Rajasthan, 2006 Lawsuit SC 162, decided on 28.02.2006 by Supreme Court of India in which it has been held that the sentence provided in Section 376(2)(f) IPC does not per se become life sentence.
Counsel for State submitted that even in a case covered under Section 376 (2) (f) IPC, imprisonment for life can be awarded. It is to be noted that a minimum sentence of ten years has been statutorily provided and considering the attendant circumstances the imprisonment for life in a given case is permissible. Neither the trial court nor the High Court has indicated any such factor. Only by applying Section 3(2)(v) of the Atrocities Act the life sentence was awarded. Therefore, the sentence of life imprisonment was reduced to 10 years.
Additional Government Advocate submitted that accused appellant should be punished severely without relaxation. The offence of rape is serious offence. The physical scar may heal, but the mental scar will always remain. When a woman is ravished, what is inflicted is not merely physical injury but the deep sense of some deathless shame. Judicial response to human rights cannot be blunted by legal jugglery. A girl of 14 years who is raped is not an accomplice.
The measure of punishment in a case of rape cannot depend upon the social status of the victim or that accused. It must depend upon the conduct of the accused, the state and age of the sexually assaulted female and the gravity of the criminal act. Crimes of violence upon women need to be severely dealt with. Protection of society and deterring the criminal is the avowed object of law and this is required to be achieved by imposing appropriate sentences. The sentencing Courts are expected to consider all relevant facts and circumstances bearing on the question of sentence and proceed to impose a sentence commensurate with the gravity of the offence. The court must hear the loud cry for justice by the society in cases of the heinous crime of rape on innocent helpless girl of tender years. Public abhorrence of the crime needs reflection through imposition of appropriate sentences by the court. To show mercy in the case of such heinous crime would be a travesty of justice and the plea for leniency is wholly misplaced.
The Court held that,
It is an admitted fact that at the time of incident the prosecutrix was about 14 years and the accused was 19 years. At the time of incident, the accused was a married person and prosecutrix married later on and was leading a peaceful married life.
The appellant is at present 32 years and is incarcerated for 13 years for charge under Section 376(G) I.P.C. So in the present facts and circumstances and the law laid down by the Apex Court, we are of the view that in the case life imprisonment would be excessive punishment and punishment for 13 years would be adequate punishment which the appellant has already served out.
Therefore the sentence is reduced to rigorous imprisonment (R.I.) 13 years in place of life imprisonment. We feel that ends of justice would suffice by imposing R.I for 13 years which has been served by the appellant already. However, the fine amount of Rs 5000 being found to be excessive was reduced to Rs 3000 in default, to further undergo RI for one month.
Also read: Women in Black
“In view of the above discussion the conviction imposed on the appellant herein is confirmed. However, the sentence of life imprisonment is modified to RI for 13 years with a fine of Rs 3000 in default of further undergo RI for one month. The conviction and sentence imposed on the appellant under Section 506 I.P.C is confirmed. All the sentences shall run concurrently,” the Court with the above modification of sentence disposed of the appeal.