MP High Court Asks Sessions Judge To Explain Why She Awarded Lesser Than Prescribed Minimum Sentence For Rape

In a criminal appeal filed against a rape conviction and for suspension of sentence, Madhya Pradesh High Court has called for an explanation from the Sessions Judge, Dindori, as to why lesser than the minimum prescribed statutory sentence for offence of rape under Section 376(1) IPC was awarded to the convict. The single-judge bench of Justice Dinesh Kumar Paliwal observed that Section 4-A of the Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, 2018 (Act No.22 of 2018) prescribed the minimum sentence for an offence under section 376(1) of IPC as not less than 10 years R.I. which may extend to imprisonment for life and fine. The said amendment replaced '7 years R.I' found before in Section 376(1), the court added. “…The awarding of 07 years sentence for an offence under section 376(1) IPC which took place on 29.08.2020 by learned Sessions Judge, Dindori is prima facie against the prescribed minimum statutory sentence. Therefore, Registry is directed to call for an explanation of concerned Sessions Judge, Dindori…”, the bench sitting at Jabalpur noted in the order. However, after analysing the trial court records and the hearing on admission, the court found the appeal to be prima facie arguable. In August 2020, an FIR was registered against the appellant/accused in Mehendwani P.S of Dindori District for offences under Sections 376 and 506(II) of the IPC. Later, the trial court convicted the appellant for the offence under Section 376(1) and sentenced him to 7 years of rigorous imprisonment in 2023. According to the prosecution version, the victim was alone in her house on the alleged date of the incident when the accused reached there and asked her hand in marriage. The FIR further stated that the accused threatened the victim and committed rape upon her. Later, the victim divulged details about the harrowing incident to her parents. Subsequently, her pregnancy was also confirmed; the complainant had stated about the events prior to the registration of FIR. Accordingly, the accused was arrested on 20.07.2021 and convicted in 2023 by the trial court. In the criminal appeal filed before the High Court, the accused/appellant has stated that the previous conviction was based on 'conjectures and surmises'. The appellant further contends that the medical evidence relied upon by the prosecution is inadequate, and there are material contradictions in the witness statements. Advocate Quazi Parvez appeared for the appellant. Dy. Advocate General A.R Ben appeared for the respondent state. The matter has been listed for further hearing three weeks after the receipt of an explanation to be given by the trial court judge. Case Title: Harvansh v. The State Of Madhya Pradesh Case No: CRA No. 13936 of 2023 Click Here To Read/Download Order

MP High Court Asks Sessions Judge To Explain Why She Awarded Lesser Than Prescribed Minimum Sentence For Rape

Sebin James

Tags