Essay on Offenders of Rape Case need to be Sternly Punished in India !
Mr. Justice S. Ratnavel Pandian of the Supreme Court (as he then was) in Madan Gopal Kakkad v. Naval Dubey & another, had observed that, “offenders of sexual assault who are menace to the civilised society should be mercilessly and inexorably punished in the severest terms.” He further stated that, “Judges who bear the sword of justice should not hesitate to use that sword with the utmost severity, if the gravity of the offence so demands.”
The Supreme Court in State of Karnataka v. Raju, held that where the victim of rape is less than 12 years of age when she was sexually ravished, the accused must be sternly punished in terms of Section 376(2) (f) of the Indian Penal Code. In this case, the accused (respondent) was convicted for the rape of a 10 year old girl on 31-01-1993 and sentenced to seven years imprisonment by the Additional Sessions Judge, Gulbarga under Section 376, I.P.C.
ADVERTISEMENTS:
On appeal against this sentence, the single judge of Karnataka High Court reduced the custodial sentence of the respondent to 3Vz years undergone by him on the ground that he was an illiterate rustic boy of 18 years. The State went in appeal against the judgment of High Court.
The Apex Court expressed surprise at the reduction of sentence of the accused by the High Court and for showing undue sympathy towards the accused. The Court note that the legislative mandate to impose a sentence for the offence of rape on a girl below 12 years of age, for a term which shall not be less than 10 years, but which may extend to life imprisonment and also fine, reflects the intent of stringency in sentence in terms of Section 376(2) (f) of IPC.
The sentence of less than 10 years R.I. can be awarded only in exceptional cases and for ‘special and adequate reasons’. The reduction of sentence of the respondent from 7 years to 31/2 years already undergone by him, on the ground that he was an illiterate rustic of 18 years age would not be justified as a ‘special and adequate ground’, as done by the High Court. The order of the High Court is therefore, clearly unsustainable.
In fact, the trial Court should have imposed the minimum sentence of 10 years as mandated by Section 376(2) (f) of I.P.C. In view of these facts the High Court’s order reducing the sentence was set-aside and the trial court’s order of awarding 7 years sentence was restored and the State’s appeal was allowed.
ADVERTISEMENTS:
Reiterating its concern for appropriate sentencing in rape cases of girls below the age of 12 years, the Supreme Court in Rajendra Datta Zarekar v. State of Goa, upheld the sentence of 10 years and a fine of Rs. 1000/- awarded to appellant who committed rape of a girl aged 6 years, who was residing in his neighbour.
The evidence including the medical report established the guilt of the appellant beyond the doubt and the Court found no mitigating circumstances which would justify less than 10 years of sentence. Rejecting the plea of the appellant that he was falsely implicated in the case, the Court stated that, “rape leaves a permanent scar and has a serious psychological impact on victim and also her family members. No one would normally concoct a story of rape just to falsely implicate a person.”
In view of the provision contained in Section 376(2) (f) of IPC a sentence of less than 10 years cannot be awarded to an accused who commits a rape on a girl below 12 years. Therefore, the sentence awarded to the appellant could not be interfered with. However, the fine of Rs. 10,000/- imposed on him is reduced to 1000/- Appeal therefore, stands dismissed.
The Apex Court once again held that imposition of sentence less than minimum in rape cases, is mandatory and the reason that accused was an “illiterate agriculturist from rural area and amount of fine of Rs. 2500/- was imposed on him”, can neither be said to be ‘special’ nor ‘adequate’ ground for reducing the sentence.
ADVERTISEMENTS:
Thus, in State of M.P. v. Babulal, the appellant raped a married woman of 22 years who was working in his “tapri”. The husband of the victim and her blind mother-in-law filed F.I.R. and medical report supported the prosecution story. There was no delay in filing of F.I.R.
The plea of the appellant that he was falsely implicated because of the failure of the victim’s husband to return advance money when demanded was found to be untenable. The trial Court had rightly sentenced the accused for 7 years imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 2500/- but in appeal the High Court reduced the sentence to the ‘period already undergone’ which was only 2 months and three days.
Disposing of the appeal the Supreme Court held that the High Court had committed grave miscarriage of justice. There was no reason, much less ‘adequate’ or special to reduce the sentence less than required to be imposed under Section 376(1). The order of the High Court was therefore, set aside and the appeal filed by the State was allowed’. The order of conviction and sentence recorded by the trial Court was upheld.