"He May Have Realised Mistake Within A Short Time, Made Confessional Statement": Meghalaya HC Reduces Rape Convict's Sentence

The Meghalaya High Court recently reduced the sentence imposed on a 27-year-old man who had been convicted of raping a 3.5-year-old girl as the court noted that he had confessed his crime and that he may not have been cruel in dealing with the minor girl and may have realized his mistake within a short time.

Reducing his sentence from 20 years' R.I. to 15 years' R.I. together with the fine of Rs. 50K, the Bench of Chief Justice Sanjib Banerjee and Justice W. Diengdoh observed thus:

"There is no doubt that there is an element of remorse that comes out from the statement. It is also apparent that it was a matter of the moment when the appellant may have been overcome with lust, but the appellant may not have been cruel in dealing with the minor girl and may have realised his mistake within a short time as he did not detain the minor girl for any great length of time."

The case in brief 

The appellant-convict sent his own brother and the brother of the victim on an errand to get him a bottle of liquor and he remained with the 3.5-year-old victim. The common version of both the boys (7 years old) was that when they returned after purchasing the bottle, they found that the convict was inside a room with the victim.

When they found the bedroom bolted from within, they peeped in from a window and both of them asserted that they could see what was going on inside the room through a crack and where the curtain in the room did not fully cover the crack.

Even though both of them did not clearly narrate that they saw the survivor being raped by the appellant herein, but in course of answering a question in the cross-examination, the brother of the victim asserted that the appellant had committed rape on the minor girl.

The testimonies of the two seven-year-old boys coupled with the confessional statement of the appellants clearly made out a case against him that he had committed rape on the minor victim, and therefore, the trial court imposed a sentence of 20 years' rigorous imprisonment awarded along with the fine of Rs.50,000/-.

Before the High Court, the main thrust of the convict's argument before the Court was against the sentence of 20 years.

Court's observations

At the outset, the Court noted that in the instant case it was evident that the conviction was primarily centered on the confessional statement of the appellant/convict himself. 

Further, taking into account the conduct of the appellant and his confession made at the earliest stage from which he has not retracted, the Court deemed it fit to reduce hi sentence from 20 years' R.I. to 15 years' R.I. together with the fine of Rs.50,000/

The order of punishment was modified accordingly without interfering with the fine imposed and the Court also clarified that in default of payment of the fine, the appellant will undergo a further three months of simple imprisonment.

Case title - Armishal L. Marshillong v. State of Meghalaya & ors

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Meg) 19

Click Here To Read/Download Order