High Court of Delhi
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KAILASH GAMBHIR & THE HONOUARABLE MS. JUSTICE SUNITA GUPTA
Lokesh Mishra
Versus
State of NCT of Delhi
CRL. A. No. 768 of 2010
Decided On : 12-03-2014
Kailash Gambhir, J.
1. The present appeal has been preferred by the Appellant under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as Cr.P.C), challenging the impugned judgment and order on sentence dated 15.04.2010 and 29.04.2010 respectively passed by the Learned Trial Court, thereby convicting the appellant for committing the offence of rape under Section 376 of Indian Penal Code and sentencing him to undergo Life Imprisonment and also to pay fine of Rs. 5,000/- in default thereof to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months u/s. 376 Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as IPC) and also sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years for offence punishable under Section 506(1) IPC. Both the sentences are to run concurrently.
2. It is appalling to see that rape rears its ugly facade almost every day. ‘Rape’ is one such dark reality in the Indian Society that devastates a women’s soul, shatters her self-respect and for a few, purges their hope to live. It shakes the insight of a woman who once was a ‘happy person’, and had no clue of being a victim of the said horrifying and nightmarish encounters where the daughter had been raped by none else but her own progenitor. A daughter always looks up to her father as a shield of her dignity and honour which is an intrinsic facet of a family especially of father-daughter relationship. It shocks human conscience when the sanctity of father and daughter relationship is ravaged in such a sordid manner and the protector becomes the violator. In such a case the offence assumes a greater degree of vulnerability which shall not go unpunished. There can never be a graver heinous crime than the father being charged of raping his daughter. It is the gravest sin, where the most platonic relationship is shattered by an extreme pervert and shameful act of nonetheless but one’s own father. The moral values of individuals of the society have gone down to such a level that every day we hear similar news which shudders our mind and soul. We have become accustomed to saying that females are not safe outside the house but in few cases, it is seen that they are not even safe inside their homes, where the epitomy of God’s beautiful creation, a child is ravished by her own father for his momentary sexual needs and pleasure which is heart-rending and odious.
3. The change would not merely come from increasing policing, giving harsher punishments etc. but the required change lies in upgrading the moral values inside all of us and imbibing an essential value that women are not an object of sexual gratification. This Court previously in Beeru vs. State, Criminal Appeal No.1079/2010 held as under:
“31. The barbarity of the offence of rape cannot be overemphasized, especially when we have witnessed the most gruesome and horrific instances of the same in the recent past. The indifference that was created towards feral men with the quotidian reporting of rape was followed by a furor bringing the heinousness and depravity of the offence once again into the forefront, awakening the yet hitherto dormant attitude of the society. On flipping of the pages of the newspaper or the channels of the television, the only resonating sound is a new incident of rape. The argument being advanced is that the incidents of rape have increased manifold but in reality it is also due to the metamorphic change the society is undergoing, that of the new found willingness of the survivors to report the offence rather than being hapless victims like before. However in the face of this positive development, we cannot turn a blind eye to the fact that the consequences of this monstrous act remain as devastating as ever, but may be the societal prism which shamed and blamed the survivor has changed angles. The women as a whole, cutting across status, class, culture, creed or sex are a vulnerable group but a minor child is most susceptible of the lot. The
Dudh Nath Pandey v. State of U. P.
Murugesan V. State ; (2012) 10 SCC 383
Rafiq vs State of U.P. reported in AIR 1981 SC 96
Wahid Khan vs. State of M.P. reported in (2010) 2 SCC 9
Ranjit Hazarika v. State of Assam
State of Punjab v. Gurmit Singh [(1996) 2 SCC 384 : 1996 SCC (Cri) 316 : (1996) 1 Scale 309]
B.C. Deva v. State of Karnataka
Harijana Thirupala and Ors. Vs. Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P.
State of Rajasthan v. Vinod Kumar AIR 2012 SC 2301
State of Himachal Pradesh vs. Gian Chand reported in AIR 2001 SC 2075
gpt-4
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.