The Supreme Court in its recent judgment emphasized the importance of providing child victims of sexual assault with counseling by trained professionals to overcome trauma and lead better lives.
The Court highlighted that the States should ensure these children continue their education, recognizing that monetary compensation alone is insufficient for rehabilitation.
Facts of the Case:
The Complainant was the father of the victim and he was residing in Suryanagar as tenants with his wife, a daughter (aged 5), and a son (aged about 2.5) alongside another tenant, Gautam Harijan. On May 8, 2014, both of them left for work leaving their children with their neighbour.
The complainant's wife upon returning from work discovered her daughter in a pool of blood, where her intimate parts were gushing with blood. She told her mother that during the daytime, Gautam Harijan stripped off her clothes and ‘performed something to her private parts’ that caused her to bleed. She was in excruciating discomfort. It was discovered that Gautam Harijan had committed rape with their daughter.
The Trial Court convicted the respondent-accused for multiple offenses, including those under the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and the Protection of Children from Sexual Offenses Act (POCSO). The original sentences were severe, with life imprisonment for offences committed under IPC and POCSO.
In the respondent's appeal, the High Court upheld the conviction but reduced the life sentence to rigorous imprisonment for twelve years.
Contentions of the Parties:
The counsel for the appellant-State of Rajasthan argued that the High Court's leniency was unwarranted, given the victim's young age and the evidence presented by a gynecologist. It was submitted that, ‘showing leniency only based on the young age of the accused will send wrong signals’
On the other hand, the amicus curiae for the respondent-accused, asserted that the High Court's imposed sentence exceeds the minimum required by law. She highlights that the incident dates back to May 8, 2014, and the respondent has been in custody since then. It was argued that the High Court's considerations of the respondent's age and caste are relevant and suggested that no further intervention was necessary.
Observations of the Court:
In this case, the Supreme Court analyzed the severity of the offences committed by the respondent, which included the rape of a very young victim. The crimes fell under specific clauses of Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) – clause (i) for the rape of a girl under sixteen years of age and clause (m) for causing grievous bodily harm during the rape. The victim in this case was only 5 to 6 years old.
The Court noted that the medical evidence and the testimony of the gynecologist, were crucial in invoking clause (m). The nature of the offence was exceptionally heinous, resulting in lifelong trauma to the victim and the destruction of her childhood.
The High Court had cited several reasons for leniency, including the young age of the accused, his belonging to a poor scheduled caste family, his non-habitual offender status, and his incarceration since May 8, 2014. However, the Supreme Court emphasized that these factors should not diminish the gravity of the offence.
The Court also highlighted the legislative intent, as reflected in Section 376E of the IPC, which prescribes stringent punishment for repeat offenders. The financial condition of the accused, it argued, should not typically weigh significantly in cases involving such serious offences, especially when the victim and accused come from similar economic backgrounds.
Balancing the rights of the accused with the impact of the crime on the victim and society is crucial. Excessive leniency, the Court emphasized, could undermine public confidence in the justice system, and the punishment must align with the gravity of the crime.
The Decision of the Court:
In the final judgment, the Supreme Court sentenced the respondent-accused to fourteen years of rigorous imprisonment for grave offenses. No remission was allowed, and other sentences were upheld. The Court emphasized that mentioning the accused's caste in judgments was irrelevant. The judgment included recommendations for rehabilitating child victims, including counseling and education. The directives were sent to the Ministry of Women and Child Development.
Case Title: State of Rajasthan vs. Gautam
Coram: Hon’ble Justice Abhay S. Oka and Pankaj Mithal
Citation: 2023 Latest Caselaw 788 SC
Case No.: Criminal Appeal No. 3168 of 2023
Advocate for the Respondent: Advocate Shweta Garg
Picture Source : https://aldianews.com/sites/default/files/articles/5533216942_e4e47cd182_o_%281%29.jpg
