SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2013 Supreme(SC) 490

Supreme Court of India
B. S. CHAUHAN & DIPAK MISRA, JJ.
Shyam Narain
Versus
The State of NCT of Delhi
Criminal Appeal No. 1860 of 2010
Decided On : 15-05-2013

IMPORTANT POINT
Rape of 8 years old girl child, life imprisonment is just punishment.

Headnote:(a) Criminal Trial - Sentencing - Principles - Discussed - Proportionality of sentence to gravity of offence is important - Just punishment - Impact of the crime on the society must not be lost sight of. (Para 11)

        (b) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Section 376(2)(f) - Rape on 8 years girl child - Sentence of life imprisonment confirmed by High Court - No reason to interfere. (Para 24)

        (2010) 12 SCC 532; (2006) 2 SCC 359; AIR 2008 SC 582; 2013 (2) SCALE 533; (1992) 3 SCC 204; AIR 1996 SC 530; AIR 1996 SC 1393; (2000) 4 SCC 75; (2012) 6 SCC 297 - Relied upon

       Facts of the case:

        It is an appeal against conviction and sentence u/s 376 (2)(f) for rape of a 8 years old girl child.

       Finding of the Court:

        Impugned judgment needs no interference.

       Result : Appeal dismissed.

       

Judgement Key Points

Key Points: - The offence involved rape of an eight-year-old girl, which is characterized as brutal and shocking to society (!) . - The trial court sentenced the accused to rigorous imprisonment for life and a fine, a sentence confirmed by the High Court (!) . - Section 376(2)(f) of the Indian Penal Code provides for life imprisonment as a possible sentence for rape [Act]. - Sentencing must consider the gravity of the offence, its impact on society, and the vulnerability of the victim (!) . - The court emphasized that rape of a child is a serious crime against society and calls for strict punishment to serve as deterrence [p_17, p_27]. - Mitigating factors such as the accused’s family circumstances do not warrant reduction of the life sentence in this case (!) . - The final appeal was dismissed, upholding the life imprisonment sentence (!) .

What is the appropriate sentence for rape of an eight-year-old girl under Section 376(2)(f) of the Indian Penal Code?

What are the principles governing the imposition of life imprisonment in rape cases involving vulnerable victims?

What factors must the court consider when determining the proportionality of punishment in rape cases?


Judgment :-

Dipak Misra, J.

The wanton lust, vicious appetite, depravity of senses, mortgage of mind to the inferior endowments of nature, the servility to the loathsome beast of passion and absolutely unchained carnal desire have driven the appellant to commit a crime which can bring in a ‘tsunami’ of shock in the mind of the collective, send a chill in the spine of the society, destroy the civilized stems of the milieu and comatose the marrows of sensitive polity. It is brutal rape of an eight year old girl. The sensitive learned trial Judge, after recording conviction under Section 376(2)(f) of the Indian Penal Code (for short “IPC”), had taken note of the brutality meted out to the child and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.5000/- failing which to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months. The Division Bench of the Delhi High Court has equally reflected its anguish over the crime by describing it as “pervaded with brutality” and “trauma which the young child would face all her life” and has concurred with the sentence of imprisonment and the fine.

2. This Court, at the time of issuance of notice, had restricted it to the quantum of sentence. However, we shall dwell upon the merits of the case in brief.

3. The horrid episode as unfurled by prosecution is that on 29.10.2003, about 6.30 p.m., an eight year old child, daughter of one Binda Saha, was taken by the appellant to Lal Bahadur Shastri Hospital and from there, being referred, she was admitted in GTB Hospital, Shahdara, at 1.30 a.m. on 30.10.2003. The young girl, as recorded in MLC Ext.PW- 10/D, had stated that she had fallen down in the toilet about 2.00 p.m. on 29.10.2003 as a consequence of which she had sustained the injuries. The treating doctor, Dr. Anju Yadav, was not convinced with what was being narrated to her. As the factual narration would reflect, the duty constable informed the local police station, i.e., P.S. Kalyanpuri, about the admission of the young girl (hereinafter whom we shall refer to as ‘M’) and her condition, as recorded in the MLC. The child remained in the hospital for six days and thereafter she was discharged. The anxious mother, unable to digest the story that was told to her by the daughter, asked her to muster courage and tell the truth to her. The young ‘M’ gained confidence and, eventually, on 10.11.2003, broke down before her mother and told her how the appellant had brutally raped her and threatened her that if she disclosed the said fact to anyone, her life as well as the lives of her parents would be in danger. The disturbed father proceeded to the police station and informed what was told by his daughter and, accordingly, an FIR was registered. After the criminal law was set in motion, the investigating agency arrested the accused and, eventually, the accused-appellant was sent up for trial. The accused pleaded innocence and claimed to be tried.

4. The prosecution, in order to establish the charge levelled against the accused, examined 11 witnesses including the child ‘M’, her parents, the doctors and other formal witnesses. The accused in his statement under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure stated that on 28.10.2003, the parents of ‘M’ had gone to see her maternal uncle and, therefore, he had taken the prosecutrix ‘M’ to the hospital for medical aid, but as Lal Bahadur Shastri Hospital refused on the ground that the prosecutrix should be taken to some big hospital, he took her to GTB Hospital for medical treatment. It was his further explanation that he took the girl to the hospital for saving her life and he was not aware that she had been raped. The allegation of threat was disputed by the accused. It is also his stand that initially the child had not named him being asked by the doctor and had stated that she had sustained the injuries by fall, and after the discharge of the child, he went to attend his work on 4.11.2003. Be it noted, the defence chose not to adduce an






























Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top