In Criminal Appeal No. 3168 of 2023 -SC- ‘An accused has no caste or religion when the court deals with child sexual abuse cases’: Supreme Court sets aside lenient sentence for rape of minor girl
Justice Abhay S. Oka & Justice Pankaj Mithal [11-10-2023]

Read Order: State of Rajasthan v. Gautam s/o Mohanlal

Chahat Varma

New Delhi, October 12, 2023: In a recent decision, the Supreme Court has set aside the lenient sentence awarded by the Rajasthan High Court to a man convicted of raping a five-year-old girl. The Court observed that the offense was so gruesome and heinous that it had a lasting impact on the victim, which would affect her for her entire life.

At the outset, the division bench of Justice Abhay S. Oka and Justice Pankaj Mithal expressed that this was a case that “shocked the conscience of the court”.

In this case, the victim's father had filed a police report, stating that he and his wife were tenants in a house owned by Chittar Lal and Gautam Harizan (respondent-accused) was also a tenant in the same house. It was stated that on 08.05.2014, the victim's mother had found the victim in a pool of blood upon returning from work. It was alleged that the respondent-accused had raped the victim.

In the Trial Court, the respondent-accused was convicted for offenses under Sections 363, 342, clauses (i) and (m) of sub-section (2) of Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC), along with Sections 3 and 4 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO Act). The respondent-accused was also found guilty of offenses under Section 8 and Section 10 of the POCSO Act. However, in the appeal filed by the respondent-accused, while confirming the conviction, the High Court had shown leniency by reducing the sentence for the offenses under clauses (i) and (m) of sub-section (2) of Section 376 of IPC to rigorous imprisonment for twelve years.

The division bench noted that the High Court had provided several reasons for showing leniency in this case. These reasons included the fact that the respondent-accused was twenty-two years old at the time of the offense, belonged to a financially poor scheduled caste family, had no history of being a habitual offender, and had been in incarceration since May 8, 2014.

The bench remarked that the childhood of the victim had been destroyed, and her life had been irreparably damaged due to the trauma and the lasting psychological impact on her mind. The incident had likely turned the victim into a psychological wreck.

The bench made it clear that, regarding the serious offenses under Section 376 of IPC and the POCSO Act, the fact that the respondent-accused was not a habitual offender was entirely irrelevant. Additionally, the fact that the respondent-accused had been in incarceration since May 8, 2014, did not carry much weight because the law prescribes a minimum sentence. Moreover, the caste of the accused should not be considered as a valid reason for showing leniency in cases of such offenses.

The bench further observed that in cases of such a serious offense against a girl aged five to six, the financial condition of the accused should not typically be a significant factor for the court to consider. In this particular case, it was noted that the victim's family belonged to the same economic strata as the respondent-accused.

The bench emphasized that this case had a significant impact on society as a whole. It stated that if undue leniency were shown to the respondent in light of the facts of the case, it would erode the confidence of the common man in the justice delivery system. The punishment must be proportionate to the seriousness of the offense.

Based on the observations mentioned above, the bench noted that only two factors prevented them from restoring the life sentence. The first factor was the accused's young age and the second factor was that he had already served the sentence imposed by the High Court. Therefore, the bench concluded that, in this case, a sentence of rigorous imprisonment for fourteen years would be appropriate. However, it was also specified that while serving the remaining sentence, the respondent-accused would not be entitled to any remission.

In their conclusion, the bench made a remark, stating that an accused has no caste or religion when the court deals with such cases. They expressed confusion as to why the caste of the accused had been mentioned in the cause title of the judgments of both the High Court and the Trial Court. The bench emphasized that the caste or religion of a litigant should never be mentioned in the cause title of a judgment,

The bench also added that it is the responsibility of the State to ensure that children who are victims of such offenses can continue with their education. The bench emphasized that true rehabilitation goes beyond mere compensation. It was stated that perhaps, the rehabilitation of girl victims in their lives should be integrated into the ‘Beti Bachao Beti Padhao’ campaign of the Central Government. As a welfare state, it is the duty of the government to take proactive steps in this regard.