Noting His 'Precarious' Economic State, Allahabad HC Modifies Life Sentence Of Man Who Raped 5-Yr Old Girl To 14-Yr RI
On Friday, the Allahabad High Court modified the sentence of a man convicted of raping a 5-year-old girl from life imprisonment to 14 years of rigorous imprisonment considering his 'precarious' financial situation, as it noted that his mother is a vegetable seller and there is no other earning member in the family. Additionally, a bench of Justice Ashwani Kumar Mishra and Justice...
On Friday, the Allahabad High Court modified the sentence of a man convicted of raping a 5-year-old girl from life imprisonment to 14 years of rigorous imprisonment considering his 'precarious' financial situation, as it noted that his mother is a vegetable seller and there is no other earning member in the family.
Additionally, a bench of Justice Ashwani Kumar Mishra and Justice Mohd Azhar Husain Idrisi considered that the convict is a first offender, and the possibility of his reformation cannot be ruled out.
Hence, noting that the sentence period he underwent with remission is nearly 15 years, the Court said that the life punishment imposed could be substituted for the sentence he already underwent under Section 376.
The court passed this order in an appeal moved by the convict (Gaurav Yadav), who was found guilty in 2017 by the Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Agra, and sentenced to life imprisonment under section 376 IPC read with section 3(2) (V) of the SC/ST Act.
The case in brief
As per the prosecution's case, on 3-4 May 2011, when the 8-year-old victim was sleeping with her father/informant along with her mother (mother of the victim), the accused person came there, took the victim up while she was sleeping and subjected her to sexual assault and thereafter assaulted her with a brickbat.
Somehow, the victim returned and lay next to her mother; thereafter, her mother and others learned about the incident.
PW-1/informant (father), PW2 (neighbour), PW3 (victim) and PW4 (mother) supported the case of the prosecution before the Trial Court based on which the trial court has found the complicity of the accused-appellant to be established beyond a reasonable doubt, and consequently, he was convicted.
Challenging his conviction, the accused moved the Court, arguing that he had been falsely implicated in the present case; the trial court had not carefully scrutinized the evidence on record.
It was also argued that the fact that the victim came back on her own, did not wake up her mother and slept next to her mother is most unnatural. It was also contended that there is no evidence on record to show that offence of rape upon the victim had been committed on account of her caste identity and, therefore, his conviction under SC/ST Act is wholly without any evidence.
Considering the case records, the trial court's judgment, and the defence's arguments, the division bench noted that the prosecution's testimony had successfully established its case beyond reasonable doubt against the accused-appellant, and even the medical evidence corroborated the victim's oral testimony.
About the testimony of the victim, the Court noted that the victim had disclosed in detail about the incident suffered by her and she had specifically recognized the accused appellant as being the person who committed sexual assault on her.
The Court also observed that the victim proved her statement recorded before the Magistrate under Section 164 CrPC, in which she specifically implicated the accused-appellant.
The Court also noted that the prompt lodging of FIR, reference of the victim to the hospital at 02.30 in the night, and her medical examination soon thereafter by the doctor clearly persuaded the Court not to doubt the veracity of the prosecution case.
Consequently, the conviction of the accused appellant under Section 376 IPC was sustained.
So far as the conviction and sentence of the accused-appellant under Section 3(2)(V) of the SC/ST Act was concerned, the Court noted that none of the witnesses had anywhere alleged that the offence of rape was committed upon the victim on account of her caste identity.
Hence, the Court opined that in the absence of any evidence in that regard, an offence under Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST Act was not established against the accused-appellant. Therefore, his conviction and sentence under Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST Act were reversed.
Regarding the quantum of punishment under Section 376 IPC, the Counsel for the accused argued that the convict was only 18-19 years old when the incident occurred.
It was also submitted that at that time, the minimum punishment for the offence under Section 376 IPC was 10 years, and the maximum punishment was life.
Further, it was also pleaded that the mother of the accused-appellant is a vegetable seller and an extremely poor lady, and apart from the appellant, there is no other earning member in the family. Hence, the sentence of life imprisonment should be modified to the period of incarceration undergone by him (around 15 years with remission).
Given this, considering the age of the accused-appellant at the time of the incident, his 'precarious' financial position, wherein his mother is a vegetable seller, and there is no earning member in the family, and the fact that the accused is a first offender, the possibility of his reformation cannot be ruled out. The Court found that the sentence of 14 years of rigorous imprisonment would adequately serve the purpose.
Consequently, the appeal succeeds and is allowed in part. The life sentence imposed upon the accused-appellant under Section 376 IPC was modified by the sentence already undergone by him.
Case title - Gaurav Yadav @ Phadka vs. State of U.P 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 364
Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 364