47 Years After Gang-Rape Of Minor, Allahabad High Court Upholds Conviction But Reduces Jail Term Of 71 Y/O Man

A bench of Justice Santosh Rai modified the sentence, noting the 43-year pendency of the criminal appeal and the surviving convict's age (71 years).

With this, the Court partly allowed the criminal appeal filed by the accused-appellant. He was directed to surrender and serve out the remainder of the sentence.

Case in brief

As per the prosecution's case, on the intervening night of October 31 and November 1, 1979, the minor prosecutrix (aged between 15 and 17 years) was forcefully abducted at knife-point by three co-villagers: Kali Charan, Ram Lal and Ram Swarup (appellant before the HC).

She was taken by train through Shahjahanpur to a vacant house in Tilhar, where she was confined for a week and repeatedly subjected to gang-rape.

Thereafter, she was brought to Bilsanda to see a fair (mela), where, on the intervening night of October 31 and November 1, 1979, she was rescued by a Sub-Inspector. Following this, a chargesheet was filed against the 3 accused

In 1983, the Court of Assistant Sessions Judge, Pilibhit, found all three of them guilty and they were sentenced to a maximum of seven and a half years of imprisonment.

The convicts challenged the verdict before the High Court in 1983. During the pendency of their appeal, co-appellants Kali Charan and Ram Lal passed away and the appeal stood abated qua them in 2022.

The case survived solely for Appellant Ram Swarup, who was 27 years old at trial and is now 71.

Arguments before the High Court

Before the High Court, the appellant's counsel did not press the appeal on the question of conviction any further, and confined his submissions to the question of sentence alone.

It was submitted that this is a fit case in which the sentence awarded by the trial court deserves to be suitably moderated in exercise of the discretion available to this Court, while maintaining the conviction and the appellant should be released on probation.

Justice Rai, however, rejected this submission as observed thus:

"In such cases, where the victim's testimony is the bedrock of the conviction, showing 'undue sympathy' to the convict would be a gross miscarriage of justice. Sentencing is not merely a retributive exercise; it must serve as a deterrent to the offender and others, and reflect the legislative intent to protect the vulnerable".

Terming the offence as 'heinous', the bench added that the social impact of sexual violence is profound, and granting the benefit of probation in a case of this magnitude would be “counter-productive” to the societal interest and the principles of criminal justice.

The bench, however, noted that Section 376 IPC, as it stood at the relevant time, allowed the courts to reduce the sentence below the statutory seven-year minimum for “adequate and special reasons”.

The Court took into account the fact that the occurrence is of the year 1979, i.e., about 47 years old and the appeal itself has remained pending in this Court for about 43 years for no fault of the appellant.

The bench also noted that the appellant, who was about 27 years of age at the time of trial, is presently about 71 years old, and there is nothing on record to show that he has, either before or after this occurrence, been involved in any other criminal case.

Taking the cumulative effect of these circumstances, and being satisfied that they constitute 'adequate and special reasons' within the meaning of the proviso to Section 376(1) IPC, the bench said that while the conviction must be maintained, the substantive sentence deserves to be moderated.

While reducing his sentence from 7.5 years RI to 4 years RI (and concurrent two-year sentences for Sections 363 and 366 IPC), the bench flagged a material error committed by the 1983 trial court.

The bench noted that the Pilibhit Trial court had failed to impose a mandatory fine alongside the jail term as dictated by Sections 363, 366, and 376 IPC.

However, Justice Rai clarified that since the state or the victim had not preferred an appeal for enhancement, the High Court could not rectify the mistake to the detriment of the accused:

"Since imposition of fine would undoubtedly amount to enhancement of the sentence already awarded, this Court, while deciding the appeal preferred by the accused alone, cannot place him in a more disadvantageous position. The omission of the trial court, though legally erroneous, cannot therefore be rectified in the present appellate proceedings".

Against this backdrop, the appeal was partly allowed.

Case Title - Kali Charan and others Versus State of U.P. 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 413