23 Years On, P&H High Court Upholds Conviction For Rape Of Minor, Reduces Sentence As Convict Suffered Paralysis

The Punjab & Haryana High Court while upholding the conviction of an appellant in a rape case, taking note of mitigating circumstances including paralysis attack and compromise entered between the parties, modified the sentence and reduced it to the period already undergone.

Justice Rupinderjit Chahal stating that the case required leniency noted, "It has been brought to the notice of this Court that during the pendency of the present appeal, the appellant suffered a paralytic attack as a result of which the left side of his body has become dysfunctional and  for which he is under treatment at PGI, Chandigarh. It is also not disputed that the occurrence in question is more than 23 years old. Furthermore, it has been stated that the appellant and the prosecutrix have married though not to each other and the prosecutrix has entered into a compromise with the appellant."

The case arises out of an FIR registered against the appellant for offences under Section 376 IPC, wherein it was alleged that the appellant had committed rape upon the prosecutrix. Upon completion of investigation, the matter proceeded to trial before the competent Court.

The trial Court, after appreciating the evidence led by the prosecution, found the appellant guilty and convicted him for the offence charged. Consequently, he was sentenced in accordance with law.

Aggrieved by the judgment of conviction and order of sentence, the appellant preferred the present appeal before the High Court challenging the findings of the trial Court.

The Court observed, “the prosecution has successfully proved its case against the appellant beyond reasonable doubt… and this Court finds no illegality, perversity or infirmity in the impugned judgment of conviction… no ground is made out warranting interference.” Accordingly, the judgment of conviction passed by the trial court was affirmed.

On the question of sentence, the Court adopted a lenient approach in view of the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case discussed above. Court said those factors constituted “adequate and special reasons” within the meaning of the proviso to Section 376(2) IPC to justify a reduction in sentence.

Accordingly, while maintaining the conviction, the Court modified the sentence and ordered that the substantive sentence awarded to the appellant be reduced to the period already undergone. The appeal was disposed of in these terms.

Mr. Vishal R. Lamba, Advocate for the appellant.

Ms. Shaveta Sanghi, DAG, Haryana. Mr. Karan Kalia, Advocate for the complainant.

Title: XXXX v. STATE OF HARYANA