Supreme Court Sentences Man Who Raped 7 Year Old Girl In Temple To 30 Years Imprisonment

In the instant case, the victim's grandmother lodged an FIR against the accused/ petitioner for kidnapping and raping. Per the case successfully established by the prosecution,  the victim, aged seven years, was taken to Rajaram Baba Thakur Mandir by the petitioner. Thereupon, the petitioner committed rape.

The trial court awarded him the capital punishment under Section 376 AB (rape on a woman under twelve years of age) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC). However, the Delhi High Court commuted the same to life imprisonment. Aggrieved by this, the petitioner approached the Top Court.

The Division Bench of justices C.T Ravikumar and Rajesh Bindal, terming the act as barbaric, observed:

“In the instant case, the petitioner-convict was aged 40 years on the date of occurrence and the victim was then only a girl, aged 7 years. Thus, the position is that he used a lass aged 7 years to satisfy his lust. For that the petitioner-convict took the victim to a temple, unmindful of the holiness of the place disrobed her and himself and then committed the crime. We have no hesitation to hold that the fact he had not done it brutally will not make its commission non-barbaric.”

Moreover, the Court also took note of the hapless situation of the victim after being taken to a temple.

“The evidence would reveal that unmindful of the holiness of the place he disrobed her and himself and raped her. When such an act was done by the petitioner, who was then aged 40 years and X who was then aged only 7 years and the evidence that when PW-2 and PW14 reached the place of occurrence, blood was found oozing from the private parts of the disrobed child.”

While imposing the sentence, the Court noted several factors, including how the incident may haunt the victim and adversely impact her future married life.

It may be noted that the punishment prescribed under Section 376 AB is rigorous imprisonment for not less than twenty years. The Apex Court opined that though the High Court commuted the sentence to life imprisonment, an alternative punishment of imposing rigorous imprisonment was also possible.

In this regard, the Court cited the landmark case of Mulla v. State of U.P., (2010) 3 SCC 508), wherein it was held:

“85……...It is open to the sentencing court to prescribe the length of incarceration. This is especially true in cases where death sentence has been replaced by life imprisonment…...”

It was also pointed out that while the accused was convicted under the relevant provisions of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, no separate sentences were imposed only because the accused was supposed to undergo capital punishment. However, it is a fact that the said aspect escaped the attention of the High Court., the Court marked.

Besides this, it was also highlighted that the convict is liable to suffer a sentence of fine. This will, in turn, be used to meet the medical expenses and rehabilitation of the victim. For this purpose, the Court imposed the above-mentioned fine concerning the conviction for kidnapping. 

In view of this above projection, the Court modified the sentence to 30 years of rigorous imprisonment (which shall also include the sentence already undergone) along with the fine. 

Case Title: BHAGGI @ BHAGIRATH @ NARAN vs. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH., Diary No.- 42693 – 2022

Citation : 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 87

Click here to read/ download the judgment