Tanisha Rana
Published on: October 22, 2022 at 21:09 IST
A rape convict’s life sentence was recently reduced by the Madhya Pradesh High Court‘s Indore bench to 20 years of rigorous imprisonment in light of the fact that he was compassionate enough to leave the survivor alive without killing her. [Ramu vs. State of MP].
While partially allowing the appeal, a bench of Justices Subodh Abhyankar and Satyendra Kumar Singh noted that,
“Considering the demonic act of the appellant who appears to have no respect for the dignity of a woman and has the propensity to commit sexual offence even with a girl child aged 4 years, this Court does not find it to be a fit case where the sentence can be reduced to the sentence already undergone by him.”
However, the Court was of the opinion that the life sentence could be reduced to 20 years of rigorous imprisonment after all, observing that the rape convict was generous enough to leave the prosecutrix alive.
The appellant Ramu @ Ramsingh filed an appeal against his conviction against the Additional Sessions Judge’s verdict in Indore, which found him guilty of raping a minor under the age of twelve in violation of the Indian Penal Code.
The appellant-convict in this case formerly resided close to the survivor’s hut in a tent.
According to the prosecution, the girl followed her grandmother as she went to attend to her personal needs.
On the premise of handing the victim a rupee, it was claimed that the appellant called the victim into his tent. The grandmother then made an attempt to call for assistance after hearing the girl’s cries. When the girl’s father heard his daughter crying coming from the appellant’s tent, he came out.
He discovered the appellant naked and his daughter bleeding on the ground when he entered the tent. As soon as he observed the survivor’s father entering the tent, the appellant fled the area.
When the youngster was taken to the hospital for examination, the doctor also confirmed that the kid had been raped. The girl had told her father about the entire episode.
According to Section 3(1)12 of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities Act, 1989) and Section 3 of the Indian Penal Code, an accusation of rape against the appellant was filed.
After then, an investigation took place, and a charge sheet was submitted. It was given to the trial court, which, after recording the evidence, found the appellant guilty and gave him a life sentence.
The appellant’s attorney argued that the case did not warrant a life sentence and emphasised that the appellant has served around 15 years in prison since his arrest in 2007. The appellant therefore asked that his sentence be reduced to the one already served.
The State’s counsel argued that because the trial court had a fair understanding of the evidence, the convict was not entitled to any leniency in the sentence.
The Court came to the conclusion that the appellant’s guilt was shown beyond a reasonable doubt by the testimony of prosecution witnesses as well as the medical report from the doctor who examined the victim.
However, it changed the life sentence to a 20-year prison term.
“Considering the fact that he was kind enough to leave the prosecutrix alive, this court is of the opinion that the life imprisonment can be reduced to 20 years’ rigorous imprisonment,” the Court said.
The appellant was represented by advocate Sharmila Sharma, and the State was represented by advocate Sudanshu Vyas.