Conviction under Deleted IPC Section Altered, No Prejudice or Failure of Justice Found
In a significant judgment, the Bombay High Court has upheld the life imprisonment sentence for Ramesh Dada Kalel, who was convicted for raping a minor girl. The division bench, comprising Justices Manish Pitale and Manjusha Deshpande, addressed the procedural error in the trial wherein charges were framed under a non-existent section of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
The appellant, Ramesh Dada Kalel, had challenged the verdict of the Court of Extra Joint District and Additional Sessions Judge, Panvel-Raigad, which sentenced him to life imprisonment under Section 376(3) of the IPC. Kalel's appeal was based on two grounds: the merits of the case and a procedural defect that he claimed prejudiced the trial.
The High Court examined the procedural anomaly where charges were initially framed under Section 376(2)(i) of the IPC, which had been deleted following a 2018 amendment. Despite this error, the court found that Kalel was not prejudiced as he was aware of the charges against him, specifically the elements of the crime under the new Section 376(3) of the IPC. The court noted that the trial proceedings and cross-examinations were conducted with full awareness of the victim's age and the nature of the charges.
On the merits, the court found the victim's testimony, supported by medical evidence, to be credible and consistent. The victim, aged 13 at the time, detailed the assault, and her account was corroborated by witness testimonies, including her mother and the school headmistress. The court emphasized that discrepancies pointed out by the defense were minor and did not undermine the victim's account.
The bench also addressed the defense's argument regarding the alleged failure of justice due to the framing of charges under a deleted section. Citing precedents from the Supreme Court, the judges stated that procedural errors do not necessitate a retrial unless they result in a failure of justice. The court concluded that no such failure occurred, as the appellant was given a fair chance to defend himself.
In their judgment, the judges reiterated the importance of balancing the rights of the accused with those of the victim, emphasizing that over-emphasis on the accused's rights should not overshadow the victim's rights.
The court's decision to uphold the conviction under Section 376(3) of the IPC and maintain the life sentence reflects its commitment to ensuring justice while correcting procedural mishaps. The judgment underscores that while procedural integrity is crucial, it should not impede substantive justice, particularly in cases involving heinous crimes like rape.
Bottom Line:
Conviction for rape under Section 376(3) of IPC substituted from Section 376(2)(i) which was deleted by amendment - Procedural errors in framing of charges found not to have caused prejudice or failure of justice.
Statutory provision(s): Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 376(2)(i), 376(2)(n), 376(3), 342, 363, 506; Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 - Section 5(l) r/w Section 6; Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Sections 215, 464
Ramesh Dada Kalel v. State of Maharashtra, (Bombay)(DB) : Law Finder Doc id # 2840537
