1. Appeal for enhancement of sentence for rape of a child under Section 376(2)(i) and (m) of the IPC and the POCSO Act. (Para 2 , 3 , 4 )
Back
Next 
2023 Supreme(SC) 1034
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
ABHAY S. OKA, PANKAJ MITHAL, JJ.
State of Rajasthan - Appellant
Versus
Gautam S/o Mohanlal - Respondent
Criminal Appeal No.3168 of 2023 (Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No.11331 of 2019)
Decided on : 11-10-2023
Advocates appeared:
For the Petitioner(s): Dr. Manish Singhvi, Sr. Adv. Ms. Shubhangi Agarwal, Adv. Mr. Apurv S., Adv. Mr. Milind Kumar, AOR
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Rakesh Garg, Adv. Mr. Ashish Gopal Garg, Adv. Ms. Shweta Garg, AOR
For the Petitioner(s): Dr. Manish Singhvi, Sr. Adv. Ms. Shubhangi Agarwal, Adv. Mr. Apurv S., Adv. Mr. Milind Kumar, AOR
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Rakesh Garg, Adv. Mr. Ashish Gopal Garg, Adv. Ms. Shweta Garg, AOR
IMPORTANT POINTS
(1) Kidnapping, wrongful restraint and rape of girl child – Caste of accused is, per se, not a consideration for showing leniency in cases of such offences – Caste or religion of a litigant should never be mentioned in cause title of Judgment.
(2) Quantum of sentence – Rights of accused must be balanced with effect of crime on victim and her family – Punishment must be commensurate with gravity of offence.
(3) Rehabilitation of girl victims in life should be part of “Beti Bachao Beti Padhao” campaign of Central Government.
Headnote:
(A) Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 – Sections 3 and 4 – Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 363, 342 and 376(2)(i) & (m) – Kidnapping, wrongful restraint and rape of girl child – Conviction – Quantum of sentence – Rigorous imprisonment for twelve years awarded by High Court in appeal – Offence is so gruesome and heinous that it will impact victim for her entire life – Childhood of victim has been destroyed – Victim's life has been ruined due to trauma and everlasting impact on her mind – It must have converted victim into a psychological wreck – As far as serious offences under Section 376 of IPC and POCSO Act are concerned, fact that respondent–accused is not a habitual offender is entirely irrelevant – Caste of accused is, per se, not a consideration for showing leniency in cases of such offences – Caste or religion of a litigant should never be mentioned in cause title of Judgment – In a given case, financial condition of accused can be one of considerations for not exceeding minimum sentence – Still, again, when it comes to such a serious offence against a girl aged five to six, financial condition of accused should not normally weigh in mind of Court – In this case, victim's family is from same economic strata as respondent. (Paras 9, 11 and 15)
(B) Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 – Sections 3 and 4 – Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 363, 342 and 376(2)(i) & (m) – Kidnapping, wrongful restraint and rape of girl child – Conviction – Quantum of sentence – While dealing with issue of sentence, in such a case, mitigating circumstances which weigh in favour of accused must be balanced with impact of offence on victim, her family and society in general – Rights of accused must be balanced with effect of crime on victim and her family – This is a case which impacts society – If undue leniency is shown to respondent in facts of case, it will undermine common man's confidence in justice delivery system – Punishment must be commensurate with gravity of offence – When it comes to sentencing, Court is not only concerned with accused but crime as well – In view of young age of accused, sentence of rigorous imprisonment of fourteen years will be appropriate – However, while he undergoes remaining sentence, respondent shall not be entitled to remission – Default sentence maintained – Secretary of Rajasthan State Legal Services Authority directed to ensure that compensation is paid to victim under victim compensation scheme of State. (Paras 12, 13, 14 and 15)
(C) Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 – Sections 3 and 4 – Sexual assault on girl child – Whenever a child is subjected to sexual assault, State or Legal Services Authorities should ensure that child is provided with a facility of counselling by a trained child counsellor or child psychologist – It will help victim children to come out of trauma which will enable them to lead a better life in future – State needs to ensure that children who are victims of offence continue with their education – Social environment around victim child may not always be conducive to victim's rehabilitation – Only monetary compensation is not enough – Only payment of compensation will not amount to rehabilitation in a true sense – Rehabilitation of girl victims in life should be part of “Beti Bachao Beti Padhao” campaign of Central Government – As a welfare State, it will be duty of the Government to do so – Copies of this judgment should be sent to Secretaries of concerned departments of State. (Para 16)
Facts of the case:
Trial Court convicted respondent–accused for offences punishable under Sections 363, 342, clauses (i) and (m) of sub-section (2) of Section 376 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 read with Sections 3 and 4 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012. Respondent–accused was also convicted for offences punishable under Section 8 (punishment for sexual assault) and Section 10 (punishment for aggravated sexual assault) of POCSO. Only issue in this case is regarding the enhancement of sentence imposed on respondent–accused.
Findings of Court:
If respondent–accused has already paid fine amount payable under judgment of Trial Court while retaining sum of Rs.5,000/- for State, rest of amount shall be paid over to victim as compensation.
Result : Appeal partly allowed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
- crime and sentencing
-
practice and procedure
- judgment drafting (Para 15)
- victim rights
Table of Contents
2. State contends undue leniency by High Court; defense argues sentence exceeds minimum and cites accused's age, caste, and period of incarceration. (Para 6 , 7 )
3. Leniency based on caste or habitual offender status is irrelevant for heinous crimes against children; punishment must be commensurate with the gravity of the offence. (Para 10 , 11 , 12 )
4. Mitigating circumstances for the accused must be balanced against the impact of the crime on the victim and society to ensure punishment is commensurate with the offence. (Para 12 )
5. Sentence for offences under Section 376(2)(i) and (m) of the IPC enhanced to fourteen years rigorous imprisonment without remission. (Para 13 , 18 )
6. Does the caste or financial status of an accused justify leniency in sentencing for the rape of a child?
No. The court held that the caste of the accused is not a consideration for leniency in such offences, and financial condition should not normally weigh in the court's mind for crimes against very young children. (Para 11 )
7. Is the fact that an accused is not a habitual offender a valid mitigating factor for sentencing under Section 376 of the IPC?
No. The court observed that for serious offences under Section 376 and the POCSO Act, the lack of a habitual record is irrelevant, as Section 376E specifically addresses habitual offenders. (Para 11 )
8. How should courts determine the appropriate sentence for heinous crimes against children?
Courts must balance mitigating circumstances favoring the accused with the impact of the offence on the victim, their family, and society, ensuring the punishment is commensurate with the gravity of the crime. (Para 12 )
9. Should the caste or religion of a litigant be mentioned in the cause title of a judgment?
No. The court stated that an accused has no caste or religion when the court deals with their case, and such details should never be mentioned in the cause title. (Para 15 )
JUDGMENT :
ABHAY S. OKA, J.
1. Leave granted.
FACTUAL ASPECTS
2. This is a case which shocks the conscience of the Court.
The only issue in this case is regarding the enhancement of the sentence imposed on the respondent–accused.
3. As the issue is confined to the quantum of sentence, it is not necessary for us to go into the correctness of the finding of guilt recorded by the Trial Court and the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan. As far as the factual details are concerned, we are reproducing the facts set out in the impugned judgment, which read thus:
“.. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. The material facts briefly leading to filing of the appeal are required to be noted. Complainant Rakesh (PW3) submitted a written report (Ex.P4) before SHO, Police Station Udyog Nagar, Kota on 8.5.2014 stating therein that he and his wife Smt.Kajod were residing at Suryanagar in the house of Chittar Lal as tenant. Gautam Harizan was also residing in the same house as tenant. They both used to attend to their respective jobs. They were having a daughter and a son. The elder was daughter aged 5 years and younger was son aged about two and half years. He further stated that on 8.5.2014, as usual, he left the house for his job at 6.00 A.M. and his wife left the house at about 910 A.M. after leaving children with their aunt Lad Bai, who was living in neighbourhood. While returning at 3.00 PM, wife of complainant found her daughter in a pool of blood. Blood was oozing from her private parts. On asking, she told to her mother that during day hours, Gautam Harijan uncle brought her from her Mausi's (sister of mother) house to his room. There he removed her clothes and undergarments. He did something to her private parts due to which there was bleeding. Accused had caused bite also. She was suffering from pain. His wife called him and they noticed that Gautam Harijan committed rape with their daughter on account of which, there was bleeding from her private parts and her garments were also stained with blood.
.. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ..”
4. The Trial Court convicted the respondent–accused for the offences punishable under Sections 363, 342, clauses (i) and (m) of subsection (2) of Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, ‘IPC’) read with Sections 3 and 4 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (for short, ‘POCSO’). The respondent–accused was also convicted for the offences punishable under Section 8 (punishment for sexual assault) and Section 10 (punishment for aggravated sexual assault) of POCSO. For the offences punishable under clauses (i) and (m) of subsection (2) of Section 376 of IPC, the Trial Court sentenced the respondent–accused to undergo imprisonment for life (for the remainder of natural life). For the offence punishable under Section 377 of IPC, the Trial Court awarded the sentence of ten years of simple imprisonment with a fine of Rs.10,000/. For the offence punishable under Section 8 of POCSO, the Trial Court convicted the respondent–accused to undergo simple imprisonment for three years and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/. For the offence punishable under Section 10 of POCSO, the respondent–accused was directed to undergo simple imprisonment for five years with a fine of Rs.5,000/. For the offence punishable under Section 342 of IPC, he was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for six months. For the offence punishable under Section 363 of IPC, he was penalised to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years with a fine of Rs.10,000/.
5. In the appeal preferred by the respondent–accused, while confirming the conviction, the High Court showed leniency by reducing the sentence for the offence under clauses (i) and (m) of subsection (2) of Section 376 of IPC to rigorous imprisonment for twelve years.
SUBMISSIONS
6. The submission of the learned counsel appearing for the appellant–State of Rajasthan is that the High Court has shown
