In a significant ruling, the High Court of Judicature at Patna has upheld the conviction of Rajendra Yadav (the appellant) in a case involving the rape of an eight-year-old girl, while simultaneously modifying his life imprisonment sentence to ten years of rigorous imprisonment. This judgment, delivered on September 9, 2024, by Honourable Mr. Justice Ashutosh Kumar and Honourable Mr. Justice Jitendra Kumar, delves into the intricate details of evidence, statutory amendments, and the principles of justice, offering a comprehensive view for a broader audience.
The case, originating from Laukahi Police Station in Madhubani District, revolves around an incident that occurred on March 30, 2017. The victim, an eight-year-old girl, alleged that Rajendra Yadav, who stands in the relationship of her grandfather, raped her at his home. She had gone to his house, a routine for neighborhood children, to watch television. According to her statement, the appellant called her to his room, committed the act, and she began bleeding and shouting. Her friends outside reportedly banged on the door, after which the appellant opened it, and she left for her home. She later became unconscious on the road and regained consciousness in a hospital.
The First Information Report (FIR) was lodged by the victim herself on March 31, 2017, at Sadar Hospital, Madhubani. Following an investigation, a charge-sheet was filed against Rajendra Yadav, leading to his trial. The Trial Court, after examining eight prosecution witnesses and three defense witnesses, convicted him under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Sections 4 and 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, 2012. He was sentenced to life imprisonment, along with a fine of Rs. 1,00,000 under IPC Section 376, and 20 years of rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 10,000 each under POCSO Act Sections 4 and 6. All sentences were ordered to run concurrently.
The Appellant’s Defense: Claims of False Implication and Discrepancies
During the appeal, the appellant, represented by Mr. Rama Kant Sharma, Senior Advocate, presented several key arguments challenging his conviction and sentence.
Firstly, the defense contended that Rajendra Yadav, being the victim's grandfather, was falsely implicated due to a property dispute. It was argued that the dispute arose from a land sale by the appellant to the victim's uncles, where the appellant was prevented from cutting and taking away bamboo trees.
Secondly, the defense highlighted a discrepancy in the appellant's age, stating that while he was recorded as 45 years at the time of the incident, the Trial Court assessed his age to be 65 years.
Thirdly, the defense questioned the forensic evidence, specifically the semen signs found on the appellant's wearing apparel. While not contesting the report's correctness, Mr. Sharma pointed to the lack of material linking the seized clothes to the appellant reliably. The investigator (PW-5) claimed one Sundar Devi handed over the clothes, but her relationship with the appellant was undisclosed in the records.
A significant argument also centered on the non-medical examination of the appellant under Section 53 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.) after his arrest. The defense argued that while not mandatory, the Supreme Court has cautioned that the prosecution must explain why such a provision was not resorted to, which, according to the defense, weakens the prosecution's case.
Lastly, the defense highlighted discrepant statements from witnesses, comparing the victim's initial FIR statement with her later statements under Section 164 Cr.P.C. and her deposition in the Trial Court. Furthermore, it was noted that none of the victim's friends, who allegedly banged on the locked door of the appellant's room, were examined. The witnesses presented were relatives of the victim, and curiously, the victim's father was not examined.
The Prosecution’s Stand: Defending the Child Victim’s Testimony
Mr. Abhimanyu Sharma, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor (APP), countered the defense arguments. He emphasized that there was no delay in reporting the matter. He argued that a child's vocabulary and expression are limited, and their statements should be understood in that context, without nitpicking on consistency.
The APP highlighted that the victim was promptly brought before a Medical Board, comprising Dr. Rama Jha (PW-6) and Dr. Gargi Sinha (PW-7). Though the hymen was found intact, both doctors clearly observed that the vagina was bruised, supporting the prosecution's version of sexual assault.
Regarding the defense of false implication due to a property dispute, the APP dismissed it as unbelievable, primarily because the victim's father was not involved in the land transaction. He argued that no family would sacrifice their child for a property dispute, especially in a village setting. The APP also suggested that there could be various reasons, such as fear or association with the appellant, for local residents not coming forward as witnesses, and this alone should not render the prosecution's case doubtful.
Court’s Analysis of Evidence and Conviction
The High Court meticulously reviewed the entire record and considered the arguments from both sides. The Court noted that despite being only eight years old, the victim was "very forthcoming in her accusation." While her vocabulary was limited, referring to the act as a "bad act," she clearly explained the circumstances of her presence at the appellant's house and the subsequent events. The Court observed that it was a regular practice for children to gather at the appellant's house to watch television. It was from this group of children that the appellant allegedly targeted the victim, his grand-daughter, and subjected her to the "shameless and dastardly act."
The Court found that the immediate medical examination of the victim by a Medical Board, with two doctors testifying as PW-6 and PW-7, lent credence to the prosecution's claim that the victim was bruised and bleeding, necessitating urgent medical attention.
Medical Evidence Scrutiny:
Dr. Rama Jha (PW-6) testified that the victim’s sexual characteristics were undeveloped, and there were no external injuries except on her private parts. While the hymen was intact, lacerations were present all around it and on the labia minora, though there was no bleeding upon touch. The injuries were estimated to be 24 hours old. A pathological examination of the vaginal swab did not reveal spermatozoa. The victim's age was assessed to be between 7 and 8 years. PW-6 initially concluded that the injuries could be due to an attempt to rape, but in cross-examination, she stated she found no definite signs of rape and that lacerations could also result from falling on a rough, hard surface. Dr. Gargi Sinha (PW-7) made similar observations.
Despite the medical finding of an intact hymen and the possibility of injury from a fall, the Court concluded that the medical examination "becomes very clear that the victim was subjected to rape as defined under Section 375 of the IPC, which is evident from the bruises on her private parts."
Witness Testimonies Assessment:
The Court examined the depositions of Shobha Kumari (PW-2, victim’s aunt), Ful Kumari Devi (PW-3, victim’s mother), and Nirsi Devi (PW-4, victim’s grandmother). While PW-2 generally supported the prosecution, she lacked specific details and was unaware of any land dispute. The Investigator (PW-5) contradicted PW-2's statements, claiming she never mentioned the specific details of the occurrence or the blood-stained undergarments.
PW-3, the victim's mother, supported the prosecution's case entirely, stating she found the victim unconscious, took her to the hospital, and the victim narrated the incident after regaining consciousness. She denied the defense's suggestion that the case was lodged due to the bamboo tree dispute. However, the Investigator (PW-5) denied that PW-3 had provided details about the appellant taking the victim to his room or the victim bleeding from her private parts, or that other children were present.
PW-4, the grandmother, also supported the prosecution generally, but the Investigator's deposition indicated she did not provide detailed information. She also denied the existence of a dispute between the families that could have motivated a false implication.
PW-5, the Investigator, did not record the initial FIR. He seized the appellant's clothing from an unidentified Sundar Devi and the victim's undergarments. He arrested the appellant but did not subject him to a medical examination. He also took the victim for her Section 164 Cr.P.C. statement.
Court's Final Findings on Guilt:
The High Court acknowledged certain facts as established: the victim suffered injuries (laceration and bruises) on her private parts due to rape. However, the Medical Board did not provide a clear assessment of the injury's gravity. The Court found no strong basis to believe the appellant's defense of false implication due to a property dispute, noting that the appellant was the aggrieved party in that situation and the prosecution didn't allege he sought revenge.
The Court also noted the unexplained absence of testimony from the children and other villagers who reportedly banged on the locked door. The Investigator also did not attempt to ascertain information from local children. Despite these points, including the lack of the appellant's medical examination (though Section 53 Cr.P.C. may not be mandatory), the Court found it "difficult for us to disbelieve the victim totally." Consequently, the Court concluded that the appellant was "rightly been convicted under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 4 and 6 of the POCSO Act, 2012." The appellant had raised no objection regarding the victim's age during the trial.
Modification of Sentence: A Look at Legal Evolution and Mitigation
While upholding the conviction, the High Court expressed reservations regarding the life imprisonment sentence imposed by the Trial Court. This reservation stemmed from the fact that the offense occurred in 2017, a period when the mandatory sentencing provisions for IPC Section 376 and POCSO Act Sections 4 and 6 were less stringent than the subsequent amendments.
The Court meticulously detailed the statutory changes in IPC Sections 375 and 376 and POCSO Act Sections 5 and 6, categorizing them into three periods:
- Before February 3, 2013: IPC Section 375 defined rape against a "woman" with a minimum sentence of seven years and a maximum of life imprisonment under Section 376(1). If the victim was under twelve, the minimum was ten years, maximum life.
- February 3, 2013, to April 2, 2013 (Ordinance Period): The Criminal Law (Amendment) Ordinance, 2013, temporarily substituted "rape" with "sexual assault," making it gender-neutral, and increased minimum sentences. For a person in a position of trust or authority (like a relative) assaulting someone under eighteen, the minimum was ten years, extendable to life imprisonment.
- After April 2, 2013 (Amendment Act): The Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, 2013, restored the definition of "rape" against a "woman" and specified that rape on a woman under eighteen years of age carries a minimum of seven years, extendable to life imprisonment. For aggravating circumstances, including a relative committing rape on a woman under sixteen years of age, the minimum sentence was ten years, which could extend to life, meaning imprisonment for the remainder of natural life.
- Post-2018 and 2019 Amendments: The Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, 2018, further stiffened penalties, particularly for victims under sixteen (minimum twenty years, extendable to life imprisonment meaning natural life, or death for victims under twelve). The POCSO Act was also amended in 2019, introducing harsher penalties for aggravated penetrative sexual assault, including a minimum of twenty years, extendable to life imprisonment meaning natural life, or even death.
The Court highlighted that the incident in this case predated these more severe mandatory sentences.
In its decision to modify the sentence, the High Court considered several mitigating factors:
- The appellant has no recorded criminal antecedents and is a family man, suggesting he is unlikely to re-offend.
- He is now a septuagenarian.
- Crucially, his conduct in jail for the past seven and a half years has been exemplary. He has actively imparted education to fellow inmates, earning a certificate of appreciation from the Jail Superintendent. This indicates he is not beyond reformation.
- The Court also invoked Article 20(1) of the Indian Constitution, which protects against a penalty greater than that prescribed by the law in force at the time of the offense.
Considering the totality of the case, the Court concluded that a sentence of ten years of rigorous imprisonment for the offenses under Section 376 IPC and Sections 4 and 6 of the POCSO Act, 2012, would be "sufficient and condign." The sentences are to run concurrently.
Conclusion of the Appeal
In summation, the High Court dismissed the appeal, meaning the conviction of Rajendra Yadav was sustained. However, the sentence was significantly modified from life imprisonment to ten years of rigorous imprisonment, taking into account the legal framework at the time of the offense and the appellant's conduct and circumstances. The records of the case are to be transmitted to the Trial Court.
Read the full judgement Below;
https://patnahighcourt.gov.in/viewjudgment/NSMxMTczIzIwMTkjMSNO-Xz3M4y9NXww=
0 Comments