34 Years Later, Allahabad High Court Upholds 3 Year Imprisonment Of Man For Mutilating Private Part Of A 4 Year Old Girl

The Allahabad High Court today upheld the conviction and 3-year imprisonment awarded to a man who had mutilated the private part of a 4-year-old girl in the year 1988 and was convicted by the Sessions Court under sections 324 and 354 IPC.

The bench of Justice Krishan Pahal categorically held that mutilating the private part of the minor girl cannot be termed as an act of a person of normal virtues and that the accused had committed the act out of severe sexual lust and a sadistic approach.

"This is one of the most serious and diabolic offence committed against a minor girl of tender age of four years," the Court remarked as it canceled the Bail bonds of the accused-appellant and he was directed to surrender before the court below forthwith to serve out his remaining sentence.

Significantly, the Court called it a 'sad state of affairs' that the state had not filed an appeal against the convict's sentence of 'such a short term'. It may be noted that while section 324 IPC carries a maximum of 3 Years of Imprisonment, Section 354 IPC carries a maximum of 2 years of imprisonment.

The case in brief

The trial Court found the accused guilty of cutting the private parts of a 4-year-old girl with a blade and also attempting to commit rape and outraging the modesty of the victim in November 1988.

Consequently, in October 1992, he was convicted u/s 324 IPC and sentenced to three years of rigorous imprisonment. He was also convicted u/s 354 IPC and sentenced to two years of rigorous imprisonment. Challenging the judgment and order, the Accused-appellant moved to the High Court.

Court's analysis

The Court observed that it was proved beyond reasonable doubt by the statements of prosecution witnesses i.e. PW-1 (informant), PW-2 (victim), PW-3 (Dr. Sushma Singh), PW-5 (Dr. H.N. Bahadur), PW-6 (Dr. Ashok Upadhyay) and PW-9 (mother of the victim) that the appellant had committed the offence.

The Court also noted that the statements of prosecution witnesses, the date, time, and motive of offence stood corroborated and that the identification of the appellant in the dock had been done by the PW-2 victim.

Further, the Court also observed that although the charge against the accused was framed u/s 376/511 IPC, however, since the evidence regarding the commission of offence punishable under Section 354 IPC only was proved, therefore, he was rightly convicted the appellant u/s 354 IPC.

Consequently, considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case, statement of the witnesses, relevant case laws and the fact that the offence committed by the appellant by mutilating the private part of the minor girl cannot be termed as an act of a person of normal virtues, the Court upheld his conviction.

The Court further opined that the appellant did not deserve any kind of leniency as the said case stands proved beyond any reasonable doubt by the statement of the prosecution witnesses and the medical evidence adduced.

Significantly, the Court did express its disppoinment over the fact that no appeal was preferred against the conviction of the accused only under Sections 324 and 354 IPC.

"It is a very sorry state of affairs that the State has not preferred any appeal against the leniency observed by the learned Trial Court in sentencing the appellant to such a short term. The lethargy of the public prosecutor is highly deplorable," the Court remarked as it dismissed the appeal filed by the accused.

Case title - Ishrat v. State [CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 1935 of 1992]

Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 396

Click Here To Read/Download Order