Supreme Court doubles sentence of rapists
New
Delhi,
Sep
16:
Doubling
the
sentence
of
a
rapist
of
a
ten-year-old
girl
from
three
and
a
half
years
to
seven
years,
the
Supreme
Court
has
held
that
crimes
of
violence
against
women
must
be
sternly
dealt
with.
A bench comprising Justices Arijit Pasayat and PP Naolekar, while setting aside the judgement of Karnataka High Court, has held ''considering the legal position and in the absence of any reason which could have been treated as special and adequate.
The reduction of sentence as done by the High Court is clearly unsustainable.'' ''The trial court should have imposed sentence of ten years in terms of section 376 (20) (f) IPC. But state has not questioned the sentence as imposed by the trial court is restored. The high court's order reducing the sentence is set aside.'' The apex court, while appealing the state of Karnataka and enhancing the sentence of Raju has said ,''It needs no emphasis that the physical scar may heal but the mental scar will always remain. When a woman is ravished, what is inflicted is not merely physical injury but the deep sense of some deathless shame. And accused cannot cling to fossil formula and insist on corroborative evidence, even if taken as a whole, the case spoken to by the victim strikes a judicial mind as probable. Judicial response to human rights cannot be blunted by legal jugglary.'' Notably, the victim was less than 12 years of age when she was subjected to sexual assault by the accused, Raju, on January 31, 1993 in Gulbarga, Karnataka.
The apex court in its jugdgment concluded by observing, ''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 and the court should proceed to impose a sentence to commensurate with the gravity of offence.
Courts must hear the loud cry for justice by society in cases of the heinous crime of rape on innocent helpless girls of tender years as in this case and respond by imposition of proper sentence.
Public abhorrence of the crime needs reflection through imposition of appropriate sentence by the court. To show mercy in the case of such a heinous crime would be a travesty of justice and the plea for leniency is wholly misplaced.
In
a
13-page
judgement,
Justice
Pasayat
also
noted,
''Judges
in
essence
affirm
that
punishment
always
ought
to
fit
the
crime,
yet
in
practice
sentences
are
determined
largely
by
other
considerations.
Propotion
between
crime
and
punishment
is
a
goal
respected
in
principle
and
inspite
of
errant
notions,
it
remains
a
strong
influence
in
the
determination
of
sentences.''
UNI