Read Time: 09 minutes

The Calcutta High Court bench of Justices Joymalya Bagchi and Bivas Pattnayak reduced the sentence of a man, accused of raping and impregnating a minor, from life imprisonment to 14 years of rigorous imprisonment. The now 14-year-old minor had been repeatedly raped over a period of 7 years.

"In the present case, offence of penetrative sexual assault has been committed upon a helpless victim of 14 years which is inhumane and shakes the judicial conscience. However, keeping in mind the entirety of the circumstances I am of the opinion that the quantum of sentence imposed by the trial court for rigorous imprisonment for life in respect of offence under section 6 of the POCSO Act, 2012, which is the maximum one, needs to be relooked," the Court stated.

As per the prosecution, the accused used to trespass into the house of the victim and rape her in the absence of other members of the family. This carried on for over 7 years till the victim conceived a child as a result of the atrocities.

Thereafter, a case was registered and accused got convicted by the lower court under Section 6 (aggravated penetrative sexual assault) of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO Act) and under Sections 448 (house trespass) and 506 (criminal intimidation) and 376 (2)(i) (rape on a woman when she is under 16 years of age) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC).

However, appealing against the lower court's decision, the defense had submitted that the DNA test was not conducted by the investigating agency which had raised a question about the pregnancy of the victim. However, rejected this contention and stated,

"Although this might be drawback on the part of the investigating officer in not conducting the DNA test but that cannot be a ground to discredit the testimony of the victim girl. The victim girl had no control over the investigating agency and any negligence of the investigating officer cannot affect the credibility of the evidence of the victim girl."

Apart from this, the defense had further argued that there are certain discrepancies in the FIR lodged by the victim. However, setting aside these claims too, the bench noted that those are minor omissions or discrepancies and are not of fatal nature to throw away the prosecution case altogether. Court referred to Rattan Singh versus State of H.P. and said, 

"Be that as it may, it is observed that the FIR is never an encyclopedia rather it is information made at the first instance which sets the criminal law into motion. Criminal courts should not be fastidious with mere omissions in the first information statements, since such statements cannot be expected to be a chronicle of every detail of what happened nor to contain an exhaustive catalogue of events which took place."

The issue of delay in filing FIR was also raised by the defense. Upon this, Court took note of the fact that the victim did not inform because of the continuous threat to her and her brother's life by the accused. Court said, 

"The victim girl belonging to a traditional non-permissive Indian society would be extremely reluctant to admit occurrence of any incident that would reflect upon her chastity, leading to being looked down upon and ostracized by the society. Therefore her not informing to anyone under the circumstances cannot detract from her reliability. In the normal course of human conduct, this unmarried minor girl, would not like to give publicity to the traumatic experience she had undergone and would feel terribly embarrassed in relation to the incident to narrate it to anyone, overpowered by feeling of shame and her natural inclination would be avoid talking about it to anyone, lest the family name and honour is brought into controversy."

Accordingly, the Court upheld the conviction of accused, however, reduced the life imprisonment sentence as issued by lower court to 14 years of rigorous imprisonment. 

"In the present case in hand it is found that there was repeated sexual assault upon the victim by the appellant resulting in her pregnancy, which is an aggravating circumstance. Thus keeping in mind the entire gamut of circumstances, in my view, a term of 14 years of rigorous imprisonment will be commensurate with the nature of offence and accordingly sentence for rigorous imprisonment for life imposed in respect of Section 6 of POCSO Act, 2012, is reduced to rigorous imprisonment for a term of 14 years," the Court stated. 

Md. Israil -Vs- The State of West Bengal.