{"id":272541,"date":"2022-08-29T11:00:47","date_gmt":"2022-08-29T05:30:47","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?p=272541"},"modified":"2022-08-29T11:00:47","modified_gmt":"2022-08-29T05:30:47","slug":"bombay-highcourt-prosecution-proved-rape-no-reason-trial-court-lesser-sentence-statute-legal-news-legal-research","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2022\/08\/29\/bombay-highcourt-prosecution-proved-rape-no-reason-trial-court-lesser-sentence-statute-legal-news-legal-research\/","title":{"rendered":"Bombay High Court| Once prosecution has proved the offence of rape, there is no reason for the Trial Court to award a lesser sentence than what the statute prescribes"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n

\n

Bombay High Court<\/span>: While deliberating upon the instant appeal challenging the conviction and sentence under Section 376<\/a>, IPC<\/a> [rape], the Division Bench of A.S. Gadkari and Milind N. Jadhav, JJ., observed that, once the Trial Court has concluded that the prosecution has proved the offence of rape beyond reasonable doubt, then there is no reason to deviate from the statutory position and award a lesser sentence than what is prescribed by the statute.<\/p>\n

Facts and Legal Trajectory of the case: <\/span>Victim X (deaf and dumb), her husband (blind) and the accused with his family, lived jointly in her matrimonial home. The victim came to her paternal home, wherein she narrated her ordeal before her mother via sign language and gestures. She revealed that the appellant had ravished her on 16-11-2005 and threatened her with dire consequences if she divulged the details to anyone. The mother of the victim then lodged a report with Lasalgaon Police Station.<\/p>\n

Investigation and medical examination were conducted, and witnesses were examined. The appellant was arrested and the chargesheet was filed. The matter came up before Additional Sessions Judge, Niphad, Nashik whereby the appellant was convicted for offences punishable under Sections 376<\/a> and 503<\/a>, IPC<\/a>. The Trial Court had observed that appellant\/accused has been facing trial for 6-7 years and is 60 years old therefore leniency has been shown while sentencing him.<\/i> Via Trial Court’s order dated 13-02-2013, the appellant\/accused was sentenced to 5 years’ rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 1000.<\/i><\/p>\n

Aggrieved with the afore-stated conviction and sentence, the appellant knocked on the doors of the High Court. Meanwhile the State of Maharashtra filed an appeal to enhance the sentence given by the Trial Court. The High Court too registered a suo-motu<\/i> petition issuing a notice to the Additional Sessions Judge, Niphad, Nashik concerning the quantum of sentence.<\/p>\n

Contentions<\/span>: The counsel of the appellant contended that the prosecutrix had filed a false case and that the accused\/appellant was not present in the house at the time of the alleged crime. The counsel also argued that the case was a means to an end i.e., to affect a partition of the family field and property. It was also argued that there was a substantial delay of 3 days in filing the FIR.<\/p>\n

Per contra<\/i>, the respondents contended that the appellant\/ accused is the brother-in-law of the victim and on the day of the crime, all the family members had gone out, except the victim, her blind husband and the accused. It was submitted that the appellant’s crime has been proved beyond reasonable doubt. The respondents thus urged the High Court to enhance the 5-year sentence given to the appellant as per Section 376 as it stood prior to the amendment in 2018.<\/p>\n

Observations<\/span>: Perusing the facts and the contentions presented, the Court made the following observations-<\/p>\n