TMI Blog2000 (3) TMI 1096X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and 9.00 p.m. while the prosecutrix and her brother, Ramesh were playing in the Chavani of their house, the respondent went there and called out for Honnaiah. PW-4 father of the prosecutrix. Parvathi, PW-5 was at that time preparing chapattis in the kitchen. She answered back to say that her husband was not in the house. On hearing this, the respondent went inside the house and asked Parvathi, PW-5 to sleep with him, since her husband was not present in the house. She protested. The respondent made obscene gestures and pulled her breasts and on her further protest, the respondent beat her up. Parvathi, PW-5 managed to somehow escape and ran out of the house and went towards the house of her mother in law, Ramaji. Both the prosecutrix and her brother, after observing the incident also made an attempt to run away. The respondent, however, caught hold of the prosecutrix by her right hand and dragged her to room no. 3 of houses in collie line. The respondent closed the door and forcibly made prosecutrix to lie on the floor. The protest of the prosecutrix and her effort to free herself from the hold of the respondent led to the respondent beating her on her upper lip which started bl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... has suffered injuries on his private part as well as on his right knee. The injuries suffered by the girl speak eloquently about the cruel nature of his act. So far all these reason I find no just, proper and reasonable grounds to show him any leniency. 4. The Trial Court, accordingly imposed a sentence of 10 years R.L. and a fine of ₹ 3000/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo 6 months R.I. for the offence under Section 376 IPC it was directed that in the event of recovery of fine, the entire amount shall be paid to the victim, prosecutrix PW-1. 5. The appellant filed on appeal against his conviction and sentence. The Division Bench of the High Court accepted all the findings recorded by the Trial Court with regard to the guilt of the respondent and the manner in which he had made obscene gestures to the mother of the prosecutrix.inviting her to satisfy his sexual lust, pulled her breasts and beat her and after she had escaped to have caught hold of the prosecutrix and taking her to room no. 3 in the COOLIE LINE committed rape on her when she was just about 8 years of age. While confirming the conviction of the respondent for the offence under Section ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ccurrence , he had an old mother, wife and children to look after. The Division Bench took note of the fact that when questioned by the learned Trial Judge on the question of sentence, he had stated that he was deaf by one year, that all the members of his family were depending on him for their livelihood and that if he was sent to jail, his family would be ruined and observed: Here is a case of an unsophisticated and illiterate citizen belonging to a weaker section of the society, having committed various offences while in a state of intoxication. It is common knowledge that when a man goes in a state of intoxication whether voluntarily or involuntarily, his reason would be unseated. He would indulge in acts knowing not the consequences of his acts which he forgets soon after he returns to a normal state. 8. The sentence for the offence under Section 376 IPC was reduced from 10 years R.I. to 4 years R.I. The sentence of fine together with the default clause was, however, maintained. 9. The respondent has not challenged his conviction. We have ourselves perused the evidence on the record including the medical evidence with the assistance of learned Counsel for the parties. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... There are no good reasons given by the High Court to reduce the sentence let alone special or adequate reasons . The High Court exhibited lack of sensitivity towards the victim of rape and the society by reducing the substantive sentence in the established facts and circumstances of the case. The Courts are expected to properly operate the sentencing system and to impose such sentence for a proved offence, which may serve as a deterrent for the commissions of like offences by others. 13. In State ofA.P. v. Bodem Sundara Rao , while dealing with a case of reduction of sentence from 10 years R.I. to 4 years R.I. by the High Court in the case of rape of a girl aged between 13 and 14 years it was observed: In recent years, we have noticed that crime against woman are on the rise. These crimes are an affront to the human dignity of the society. Imposition of grossly inadequate sentence and particularly against the mandate of the Legislature not only is an injustice to the victim of the crime in particular and the society as a whole in general but also at times encourages a criminal.The Courts have an obligation while awarding punishment to impose appropriate punishment so as to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cogent reasons for imposing the sentence of 10 years R.I. for the offence under Section 376 IPC on the respondent. Those reasons have impressed us. The Trial Court was rightly influenced by the fact that the respondent was a married man of 49 years of age having his own children and the victim of his sexual lust was an innocent helpless girl of 7/8 years of age. The medical evidence provided by PW-6, Dr. Shalini Devi exhibits the cruel nature of the act and the extent of pain and suffering which the victim might have undergone on her genitalia as a result of forcible coitus. The Trial Court had, therefore, opined that because of the cruel nature of the act, the accused was not entitled to any leniency. 17. The High Court however, differed with the reasoning of the Trial Court in the matter of sentence and as already noticed, the reasons given by the High Court are wholly unsatisfactory and even irrelevant. We are at a loss to understand how the High Court considered that the discretion had not been properly exercised by the Trial Court . There is no warrant for such an observation. The High Court justified the reduction of sentence on the ground that the accused respondent was ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
