The bench of Justice Satyendra Kumar Singh and Justice Subodh Abhyankar, Indore Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court found that the appellant’s sentence of life imprisonment is neither cruel nor disproportionate in light of the victim’s rights and predicament in the case of Pappu V. The State Of Madhya Pradesh [Criminal Appeal No. 1132 Of 2012]
Brief Facts Of The Case: The Additional Sessions Judge in Dhar found accused Pappu guilty of an offence punishable under Sections 376(2)(F) of the I.P.C. and sentenced him to life in prison with a fine of Rs.25,000/- and one year of additional rigorous imprisonment if the money was not paid. He had gone to the HC to contest his conviction and sentence. In addition to contesting his conviction, the Accused claimed that he had been in prison for around ten years and that, given the aforementioned quality of evidence against him, his sentence could be reduced to ten years (period already served), which is the minimum sentence under Section 376(2)(f) of the IPC.
According to the prosecution, the victim’s mother had placed her daughter next to the appellant (with whom she had cordial relations) who was sleeping on the ground, and when she returned to take her after half an hour, she discovered that the appellant had kept his face covered with bedding, but when she took her daughter in her arms, her hands were stained with blood because her daughter was bleeding profusely from her private parts. The appellant’s family first advised her not to tell anybody about the occurrence; however, after around 4-5 days, the victim’s mother informed her about the incident to her sister-in-law, and her brother and husband also learned about it, and a FIR was filed.
Judgement: The Court observed that the doctor who examined the victim had said that the victim’s inside suffering was suggestive of penetration. The evidence of the victim’s mother was considered to be supportive of this evidence by the court. As a result, satisfied with the doctor’s evidence, the Court further added that there was no cause to doubt the victim’s mother’s statement and her difficulties in rushing to the police station right away. The court concluded that the victim was raped by the present appellant, who was only three years old at the time of the crime, given these circumstances. The High Court then did upheld the appellant’s life sentence for raping a 3-year-old child, noting that the accused had left an everlasting trace of destruction on the victim’s mind and body. And as a result, because the instant appeal lacked credibility, it was dismissed.
JUDGEMENT REVIEWED BY PRAKIRTI JENA