State of Gujarat vs Rambahadur Bhagwati Prasad Viswakarma

Akil Kureshi, J.—This appeal is filed by the State seeking enhancement of sentence awarded by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ahmedabad (Rural) in his judgment dated 17.01.2011 to the present respondent-original accused. The respondent was charged with offence punishable u/s 376 of IPC of allegedly having raped a minor girl of six years. He was convicted for such offence and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment of 07 years. He was also awarded fine of Rs. 5,000/-. The State, seeking enhancement of sentence, has, therefore, preferred this appeal. We have verified and we have been informed that the convict has not filed any appeal challenging his conviction and sentence. Despite such position, we have perused the evidence not only with the focus of State''s appeal prayer for enhancement, but also in order to ascertain whether the conviction was rightly recorded. Section 386 of Criminal Procedure Code and, in particular, clause (c) thereof gives widest possible powers to the Appellate Court in enhancing appeal to reverse the finding and acquit the accused. Hence, this exercise.

Charge was framed at Exh. 2, in which it was alleged that on 17.10.2008, at around 8.30 at night, the accused took away minor daughter of the complainant aged 6 years promising her to give a chocolate. He, thereupon, took her to an open place near the field in a godown and raped the minor girl and thereby, committed offence punishable u/s 376 of IPC.

The complainant, father of the victim, Gudumbe Sivprasad Nishad, P.W. 1, was examined at Exh. 5. He deposed that he had three children. One of them being the victim, aged about 7 years. On the date of the incident, there was a festival of Choth. He was sitting outside of the house with his sons. The victim girl was playing there. His wife was performing puja inside the house. The accused came there and took the victim girl with him for buying chocolate for her. About half and hour later, he left the girl back, at which time, the girl collapsed on the floor. She did not even eat the prasad given by her mother but went to sleep. The family members also went to sleep at night. The victim made no complaint but on the next morning, she informed about the incident. She had severe burning sensation in her private part. She was crying and complained of pain. She narrated that the accused had taken her in the field and after lying her down was pressing against her private part. He stated that the girl was wearing the same clothes the next morning also. He had not seen the blood spots at night, when the girl was returned by the accused.

The FIR was produced at Exh. 6, in which, the complainant had given a similar version.

Srimatiben Gudumbe Nishad, P.W. 2, the mother of the victim was examined at Exh. 7. She also gave a similar account of the accused having taken the girl from where she was playing outside the house promising her to give chocolate and returning her after half an hour. She had complained about body-ache at night to the mother and had also complained that the accused had taken her and after applying saliva pressed against her private part. Early morning she had complained of severe pain. She was bleeding. After filing FIR she was taken to the hospital.

The victim girl herself, P.W. 12, was examined at Exh. 36. When her evidence was recorded, she was two years elder than what she was at the time of the incident. The learned Judge took great pains to ensure that she understood the questions and gave answers which she thought were correct. He also ensured that the girl was not intimidated. After putting questions to ascertain her ability to understand the questions and give answers, she was asked about the actual incident. She stated that, on the date of the incident which happened to be a puja day, at night, she was playing outside her house. The accused took her to a field promising her to give chocolate. After taking away, he pressed against her private part. She cried but he covered her face. She stated that she had fallen down and lost consciousness. She was bleeding around her underpants.

Dr. Jayant Nagardas Solanki, P.W. 9, Exh. 27, had examined the victim girl. He had found bruises around her vagina. He had taken the samples of her saliva, vaginal swab, smear and urethral swab etc. He also got the girl examined by the Gynecologist. He had found scratches around labia minora. There was a tear in the hymen which was recent. From such injuries, he opined that there was an attempt of insertion of the penis in the vaginal passage and that there had been partial penetration. The injury certificate produced by him was produced at Exh. 29.

Dr. Bhavnaben Chanakyakumar Patel, P.W. 10, Exh. 31 had carried out the physical examination of accused. She had found him physically developed. She had collected samples such as blood, saliva, public her etc.

The samples collected by the investigating agency were sent for forensic analysis. The FSL report Exh. 42 establishes the presence of blood from the girl''s underpants and various samples such as vaginal swab, smear etc. These articles, however, did not indicate presence of semen. Likewise, clothes of the accused viz. his pant and underpants showed the presence of semen but not blood. Serological report shows that the semen as well as the blood were of Group A. Incidentally, the accused as well as the victim both were of blood group A.

From the above, it can be clearly seen that the charge of the accused having committed rape on a young girl barely as six years is firmly established. The evidence of the parents of the victim as well as the victim herself clearly proves this. As per the complainant, the father of the victim and, her mother, at about 8.30 in the evening, when the girl was playing outside the house, the accused took her promising to give her a chocolate. He returned with the girl about half an hour late. The girl collapsed and went to sleep without eating. Next day early morning, she complained about pain and burning sensation from her private part. She was bleeding from there. She complained that the accused had pressed against her private part.

The victim girl herself gave brief and clear account of the incident of the said night. After taking her from her house promising to give chocolate, she was taken into an isolated place where the accused applied saliva and pressed her against her private part.

We have no hesitation in accepting such accounts of the witness. There was strong corroboration from the medical as well as the forensic evidence. Dr. Jayant Solanki, who examined the victim, found bruises and scratch marks around her private part. The hymen had a recent tear. The doctor opined that there had been at least partial penetration. Dr. Bhavana Patel, who examined the accused, found him physically developed. The clothes and vaginal samples of the victim established the presence of her own blood. The clothes of the accused showed presence of his own semen. These factors would further corroborate the evidence of the victim and her parents.

Identification of the accused either by the parents or by the victim herself should pose no challenge. In the cross examination of the complainant and his wife, in fact, the defence had suggested that the accused was closely known to the family. Before his recent marriage, he was in fact, residing with the family for over then years. Only recently he had got married and started residing separately. The fact, that the victim girl therefore, could identify him as the person who had taken her away, is therefore, not surprising.

The question, therefore, arises whether the sentence of seven years awarded by the learned Judge is required to be increased. Section 376 of IPC prescribes punishment for offence of rape. Sub-section (1) provides for punishment of imprisonment up to a period of 10 years or for life and further provides that such sentence shall not be less than 07 years unless for adequate and special reasons to be mentioned in the judgment. Sub-section (2) of Section 376, however, provides that in cases specified in Clauses (a) to (g) thereof, the punishment for imprisonment shall not be less than 10 years but it may be for life. Proviso to sub-section (2) enables the Court for adequate and special reasons to be mentioned in the judgment to impose a sentence of imprisonment for less than 10 years. Clause (f) of sub-section (2) pertains to a person who commits rape of a woman who is under 12 years of age.

From Section 376 of IPC what emerges is that, for an offence of rape not covered under sub-section (2) punishment prescribed is for life or for a term which may extend to 10 years. Except for adequate and special reasons to be recorded in the judgment such sentence shall not be less than 07 years. For the cases under sub-section (2) of 376 the punishment is similar, namely, one which may extend to 10 years or for life but except for adequate and special reasons to be recorded, in such cases minimum sentence to be awarded is 10 years.

In the present case, the girl was aged barely 06 or 07 years. Though no birth date is produced on record, case of the prosecution is that she was well below 12 years of age. No challenge has been made to this aspect of the matter. We have, therefore proceeded on such basis. What therefore emerges is that the accused had committed rape of the girl who was barely 7 years or so and thus had committed offence punishable u/s 376(2)(f) of the IPC. Under ordinary circumstances, the minimum punishment to be awarded was rigorous imprisonment of 10 years. Perusal of the judgment of the trial court reveals that this aspect of the matter was not even examined. Quite apart from not recording any special or adequate reasons, the learned Judge did not even consider the impact of Section 376(2)(f) of IPC. Even otherwise, we do not see any special or adequate reasons for awarding sentence below 10 years. The girl was very young. The accused was known to the family and therefore, had easy access to the family. He, therefore, could easily take the girl with him under a promise to give chocolate. He misused such trust and raped the girl. He himself was aged about 24 years and was thus, sufficiently old to understand the repercussion of his action. Minimum sentence of 10 years is, therefore, called for. We might have considered even harsher sentence. However, the injuries on the girl were not very serious. He seems to have abandoned his attempt to rape and ejaculate in the girl''s vagina perhaps because of narrow passage. He left the girl safely back with the family. These are the factors which, in our opinion, would ensure that he is not visited with harsher punishment. Nevertheless sentence of 10 years simply cannot be reduced. In the result, the State Appeal is allowed in part. Sentence of 07 years of rigorous imprisonment is enhanced to that of 10 years of rigorous imprisonment. Judgment of the Trial Court is modified to the above extent.

R & P to be transmitted to the Trial Court.