Read Time: 07 minutes

Synopsis

The Allahabad High Court recently upheld the order of the trial court convicting a 58-year-old man in the rape case of an 8-year-old girl. Court said, "It is clear that the victim is below 10 than years and the appellant is a 58 years old adult who committed rape upon a girl of tender age, so deterrent punishment is called for. Taking a lenient view is out of the question."

However, the Bench of Justice Suresh Kumar Gupta reduced the awarded sentence to the period already undergone by the man. Court noted that the minimum sentence prescribed for the offence under Section 376 I.P.C. and Section 4 POCSO Act is seven years and the appellant had already been in jail since 2014.

Court considered the fact that the appellant was poor and during the trial, he was not represented by counsel of his choice. Therefore, Court opined, "so the contention of learned counsel for the appellant to adopt a lenient view in awarding the sentence to the appellant is fully acceptable."

The First Information Report of the case was lodged by the mother of the victim. It was lodged a month after the incident when child's condition deteriorated and she was taken to a doctor who opined that sexual assault had been done upon her. 

The mother stated that when she asked her daughter about it, she told her that one month earlier the appellant, a close relative of theirs, had raped her by extending threats. Thereafter, when the mother confronted the appellant, on the behest of the relationship between them, he requested her to hide the incident and told her that he will bear all the expenses for the treatment of her daughter.

During the course of the investigation, the victim was medically examined in which she stated that her maternal grandfather committed rape upon her 2-3 times. She also described the acts involved in the sexual assault. 

Thereafter, upon completion of the investigation, the chargesheet was filed against the appellant before the Additional District and Sessions Judge/Special Judge POCSO Act, and charges were framed under Sections 376, 506 I.P.C. and 3/4 POCSO Act. The trial court held the accused guilty and convicted him for the charged offences.

The appellant was sentenced for the offence under section 376 IPC for 10 years rigorous imprisonment (RI) with a fine of Rs. 10,000, under section 506 IPC for 1 year RI, and for offence under section 3/4 POCSO Act for 10 years simple imprisonment and fine of Rs. 10,000. 

Filing the appeal before the high court, the counsel for the appellant argued that there was a huge delay in filing of the FIR which was in fact lodged to harass the appellant. He submitted that the mother of the victim had taken money from the appellant, who is a close relative, and when the appellant asked about his money, the mother attacked her and later filed a false and frivolous case of rape against him. 

Court, however, found that on the perusal of case records, a case of rape was made out against the appellant. Further, Court relied upon the case of Tara Singh and others Vs. State of Punjab, wherein the Supreme Court held that mere delay in lodging the FIR by itself cannot give scope for an adverse inference leading to rejection of the prosecution case outright.

Therefore, Court partly allowed the appeal and reduced the sentence while upholding the conviction of the appellant. 

Case Title: Badri Narayan v. State of U.P.