ENGLISH SHORTHAND DICTATION-353

 

The submission of the learned counsel appearing for the appellant-State of Rajasthan is that the High Court has shown undue and undeserving leniency to the respondent. The submission of the learned counsel is that the High Court has completely lost sight of the fact that the age of the victim girl was only five to six years. He submitted that the High Court also ignored the evidence of Dr Vinod Garg who and a gynaecologist had examined the victim. His submission is that showing leniency only based on the young age of the accused will send wrong signals. We¹⁰⁰ have also heard the learned counsel appointed as amicus curiae, to espouse the cause of the respondent-accused. She submitted¹²⁰ that the minimum punishment for the offences punishable under clauses (i) and (m) of subsection (2) of Section 376 of IPC is ten years. Therefore, the sentence imposed by the High Court is more than what is prescribed as the minimum. She pointed out that the incident occurred on 8th May 2014, and the respondent has been incarcerated since then. She submitted that the factors of young age and caste of the respondent-accused, considered by²⁰⁰ the High Court, are certainly relevant. She pointed out that the respondent must have undergone the sentence by this time, including remissions. She would, therefore, submit that no interference was called for.

The offence under clause (i) of subsection (2) ²⁴⁰ of Section 376 of IPC, as it stood before 21st April 2018, was of rape of a girl who is under sixteen years of age. The victim was only 5 to 6 years old at the relevant time. The offence under clause (m) of subsection (2) of 376 of IPC is attracted when³⁰⁰ the offender, while committing rape, causes grievous bodily harm to the victim, causes her disfigurement, or endangers her life. In the present case, the medical evidence in the form of the medical report and evidence of Dr Vinod Garg indicates why the Trial Court invoked clause (m). The offence is so gruesome and heinous that it will impact the victim³⁶⁰ for her entire life. The childhood of the victim has been destroyed. The victim's life has been ruined due to the trauma and everlasting impact on her mind. It must have converted the victim into a psychological wreck.

High Court⁴⁰⁰ has given some reasons for showing leniency. First, the age of the respondent-accused was twenty-two years. Second, the respondent-accused belonged to a poor scheduled caste family. Third, the respondent-accused is not a habitual offender. Fourth, the respondent-accused has been suffering incarceration since 8th May 2014. As far as the serious offences under Section 376 of IPC and the POCSO Act are concerned, the fact that the respondent-accused is not a habitual offender is⁴⁸⁰ entirely irrelevant. The intention of the legislature is clear from Section 376E of IPC, introduced with effect⁵⁰⁰ from 3rd February 2013. It provides that whosoever has been previously convicted for the offence punishable under Section 376 of IPC and is subsequently convicted for the same crime shall be punished with imprisonment for life, which shall mean imprisonment for the remainder of that person's natural life or death. Therefore, the law takes care of habitual offenders by imposing stringent punishment under Section 376 of IPC. As law prescribes a minimum sentence, the fact that the respondent-accused was suffering incarceration from 8th May 2014 is not material. The caste of⁶⁰⁰ the accused is, per se, not a consideration for showing leniency in the cases of such offences. Here, we are dealing with a case where the victim was five to six years old. In a given case, the financial condition of an accused can be one of the considerations for not exceeding the minimum sentence. Still, again, when it comes to such a serious offence against a girl aged five to six, the financial condition of the accused should not normally weigh in the mind of the Court. In this case, the victim's family is from the same economic strata⁷⁰⁰ as the respondent.

While dealing with the issue of sentence, in such a case, the mitigating circumstances which weigh in⁷²⁰ favour of the accused must be balanced with the impact of the offence on the victim, her family and society in general. The rights of the accused must be balanced with the effect of the crime on the victim and her family. This is a case which impacts the society. If undue leniency is shown to the respondent in the facts of the case, it will undermine the common man's confidence in the justice delivery system. The punishment must be⁸⁰⁰ commensurate with the gravity of the offence. When it comes to sentencing, the Court is not only concerned with the accused but the crime as well. Only two factors prevent us from restoring the life sentence. First is the young⁸⁴⁰ age of the accused. His age was 22 years, as noted by the High Court. The second is that he has undergone the sentence imposed by the High Court. Therefore, we are of the view that in this case, the sentence of rigorous imprisonment of fourteen years will be appropriate. However, while he undergoes the remaining sentence, the respondent⁹⁰⁰ shall not be entitled to remission. Under subsection (2) of Section 376 of IPC, the offence is also punishable with a fine.

The Trial Court had imposed a fine of Rs.25,000. It is not clear whether the said amount of fine has been paid. We maintain the sentence in default of payment of the fine amount,⁹⁶⁰ which is six months’ imprisonment. We retain the punishment for the other offences and the sentence in default of fine. We also propose that after retaining a sum of Rs.5,000 for the State, the rest of the fine amount¹⁰⁰⁰ shall be paid over to the victim as compensation. We also propose to direct the Secretary of the Rajasthan State Legal Services Authority to ensure that the compensation is paid to the victim under the victim compensation scheme of the State. Before we part with the judgment, we find from the cause title of the judgments of the Trial Court and the High Court that the respondent's caste has been mentioned. The same defect has been carried forward in the¹⁰⁸⁰ Special Leave Petition as the description of the respondent-accused must have been copied from the cause title of the judgments¹¹⁰⁰ of the Courts. An accused has no caste or religion when the Court deals with his case. We fail to understand why the caste of the accused has been mentioned in the cause title of the judgments of the High Court and the Trial Court. The caste or religion of a litigant should never be mentioned in the cause title of the judgment. We have already observed in our order dated 14th March 2023 that such practice should never be followed. The cause title in this judgment has been amended accordingly. Formal amendment be carried out after¹²⁰⁰ pronouncement of this judgment.