The Bombay High Court recently comprising of a bench of Justice A. S. Gadkari and Justice Milind N. Jadhav observed that a rape convict's age and regular attendance in court hearings cannot be a reason for a lesser punishment under the law. The bench remarked while hearing a case on the prison sentence of a man who raped his deaf and mute sister-in-law in 2005. (Madhukar Makaji Mudgal vs The State of Maharashtra)
Facts of the case
The present Criminal Appeal was filed by the Appellant (accused) against the judgment and order passed by the learned trial court, convicting the Appellant for offences punishable under Sections 376 and 503 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default of which he would face simple imprisonment for one year. In this case, the High Court was dealing with three proceedings: the criminal appeal filed by the accused against his conviction, the state’s appeal to increase the sentence, and the HC’s Suo motu petition to increase the accused’s jail sentence.
In 2005, when other family members were away, the brother-in-law raped his deaf and dumb sister-in-law and threatened her to harm her blind husband, (the convict’s brother) if she talked about this incident to anyone.
The prosecution said that on November 16, 2005, between 9 p.m. and 10 p.m., the accused raped the woman at her marital home while other members of the family, including the accused’s wife and in-laws, were away. According to the woman, she tried to inform her father-in-law, but instead of listening, he left her off at her mother’s house. An FIR was filed by the victim’s mother, who then contacted the police.
Contention of the parties
The appellant’s counsel contended that the victim filed a false complaint to incriminate the accused at her mother’s behest to separate their joint family. He alleged that the accused went to bhajan-kirtan with the remaining family members, that there was a 3-day delay in filing an FIR, that the doctor found no injuries on the victim’s private parts, and that the investigator was not interrogated.
According to the prosecution, only the victim’s brother-in-law and her husband were there in the house on the day of the incident. Furthermore, he argued that medical and circumstantial evidence pointed to the accused’s guilt. Nevertheless, the victim stated in the trial court that she had undergone uterus surgery and had been living at her mother’s house for 6 months. She had barely returned to her in-laws’ house 15 days before the event, and her husband was sleeping outside because she was supposed to refrain from sex due to the operation.
Courts observation & Judgment
The court relied on the woman’s statement before the trial court, which was recorded with the help of an interpreter; and on her mother’s and the interpreter’s statements.
The court taking note of the same rejected the defence's argument that the partition was the reason behind the allegation since the partition suit was filed a year after the incident.
Dismissing the defence arguments, the court observed: “It is to be understood that no woman would even otherwise level and take the risk of levelling such a wild charge of ravishing her only on the pretext of partition of the property.
Unless and until such an incident had happened or occurred there was no reason for the victim to make such an allegation.”
The bench further observed, “In the case of Moti Lal Vs. State of M.P., the Supreme Court while considering a case under Section 376 IPC, referred to the observations of Vivian Bose, J. in Rameshwar Vs. The State of Rajasthan , and has observed that a woman or a girl who is raped is not an accomplice; that corroboration is not the sine qua for conviction in a rape case; that it is settled law that the victim of sexual shows that it has a ring of truth around. The absence of any injury on the person of the complainant may not itself discredit the statement of the complainant. Merely because the complainant was a helpless victim who was by force prevented from offering serious physical resistance, she cannot be disbelieved. The Apex Court has further held that if a conviction is based on the evidence of a prosecutrix without any corroboration it will not be illegal on that sole ground.”
The bench allowing the appeal increased Mudgal’s sentence to seven years and increased the fine amount from Rs 1,000 to Rs 25,000 and observed, “rape is not merely a physical assault but it destructs the whole personality of the helpless woman. In the present case, the victim is a helpless handicapped woman and thus, the present case requires to be dealt with utmost sensitivity.”
Read Judgment @Latestlaws.com
Picture Source :