Conviction for abduction and rape stands; sentence reduced considering time lapse and absence of criminal history.
In a significant ruling, the Delhi High Court has upheld the conviction of Ravi Kumar for offences under Sections 366 and 376 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), while reducing his sentence to the period already undergone. The judgment, delivered by Justice Dr. Swarana Kanta Sharma, addresses the nuances of corroborative evidence and judicial discretion in sentencing under pre-2013 rape laws.
The case dates back to April 2008, when a FIR was registered against Ravi Kumar for abducting and raping a young girl in Delhi. The trial court, based on substantial evidence including the victim's testimony and forensic findings, had sentenced Kumar to rigorous imprisonment of seven years for rape and five years for abduction.
Kumar's appeal contested the conviction, alleging false implication due to enmity and inconsistencies in the prosecution's narrative. However, the High Court found the victim's testimony credible and corroborated by forensic evidence, dismissing the defense's claims of consent and questioning of procedural lapses in the investigation.
The judgment meticulously examined the age of the prosecutrix, determining her to be a major at the time of the incident, and reaffirmed the applicability of Section 366 IPC due to evident intent for illicit intercourse. Despite the absence of external injuries or an intact hymen, the court reiterated the sufficiency of minimal penetration to constitute rape, referencing precedents like State of H.P. v. Manga Singh.
In a noteworthy application of judicial discretion, Justice Sharma invoked the proviso to Section 376 IPC (pre-2013 amendment), allowing for a sentence below the statutory minimum of seven years. Considering Kumar's clean criminal record, the lengthy judicial process endured, and the time already served, the court deemed the reduction appropriate.
This judgment underscores the balance between upholding convictions in heinous crimes and acknowledging mitigating circumstances in sentencing. It reflects the intricate interplay of legal standards, evidentiary assessment, and judicial compassion, shaping the discourse on criminal justice.
Bottom Line:
Conviction for offences under Sections 366 and 376 IPC upheld based on strong corroborative evidence, including testimony of prosecutrix and forensic evidence. Sentence reduced to period already undergone, considering long lapse of time, absence of antecedents, and special reasons under Section 376 IPC (pre-2013 amendment).
Statutory provision(s): Sections 366, 376, 506, 164, 313 of the Indian Penal Code; Proviso to Section 376 IPC pre-2013 amendment.
