SC enhances sentence for rapists by six years

SC enhances sentence for rapists by six years
PRESS TRUST OF INDIA

NEW DELHI, MARCH 31: The Supreme Court has severely criticised the Karnataka High Court for lacking sensitivity towards a rape victim and increased the sentence by six years of a man who had raped a seven-year-old girl, while ruling that crimes of violence against women need to be severely dealt with.

The High Court had reduced 49-year-old Krishnappa's sentence from ten years awarded by the trial court to four years on the ground that he was under the influence of alcohol while committing the crime.

"The High Court exhibited lack of sensitivity towards the victim of rape and the society by reducing the substantive sentence in the established facts and circumstances of the case," ruled a three-judge bench headed by Chief Justice A S Anand.

"Crimes of violence upon women need to be severely dealt with," the Bench comprising Justice Anand, Justice R C Lahoti and Justice S N Variava said.

"Sexual violence, apart from being a dehumanising act, is an unlawful intrusion of the right to privacy and sanctity of a female," Justice Anand said, writing the judgment.

"It is a serious blow to her supreme honour and offends her self-esteem and dignity -- it denigrates and humiliates the victim and where the victim is a helpless innocent child, it leaves behind a traumatic experience," he said.

Justice Anand said the courts were, therefore, expected to deal with cases of sexual crime against women with utmost sensitivity, sternly and severely.

"The courts are expected to properly operate the sentencing system and to impose such sentence for a proved offence, which may serve as a deterrent for the commission of like offences by others," he added.

Krishnappa of Kenjige village on May 5, 1991, went to the house of the little girl and made sexual advances towards her mother. When she resisted and fled the house, he caught hold of the girl and took her away to another place. He raped her, brutally inflicting wounds on her.

The accused left the place after locking it from outside and the girl's father, who was threatened with dire consequences if he made the incident public, could rescue her only the next morning.

The trial court after critical examination of evidence on the record found that Krishnappa, a married man with children, had imposed a sentence of 10 years imprisonment and a fine of Rs 3000 after convicting him under Section 376 of IPC.

Referring to the reduction of sentence by the High Court, the Apex Court said, "The approach of the High Court, in this case, to say the least, was most casual and inappropriate. There are no good reasons given by the High Court to reduce the sentence, let alone `special and adequate reasons'."

Impressed by the reasons given by the trial court for sentence imposed on Krishnappa, Justice Anand said, "The trial court was rightly influenced by the fact that the accused was a married man of 49 years, having his own children and the victim of his sexual lust was an innocent helpless girl of seven or eight years of age."

The High Court justified reduction of the sentence on the ground that the accused was "unsophisticated and illiterate citizen belonging to the weaker section of the society"; that he was an alcoholic and had committed rape while he was drunk; and that his family were dependent on him.

Brushing aside these reasons, the Apex Court said, "The measure of punishment in a case of rape cannot depend on the social status of the victim or the accused. It must depend upon the conduct of the accused, the state and age of the sexually assaulted female and gravity of the criminal act."

"Protection of society and deterring the criminal is the avowed object of law and that is required to be achieved by imposing an appropriate sentence," Justice Anand said.

He said, "Courts must hear the loud cry for justice by the society in cases of heinous crime of rape on innocent helpless girls of tender age, as in this case, and respond by imposition of proper sentence."

"To show mercy in cases of such heinous crimes would betray aversion to justice and the plea for leniency is wholly misplaced," the court said.