Case Note & Summary
The appellant, Pradip @ Golu s/o Suresh Dandge, was convicted by the Special Judge, Akola in Sessions Case No.173/2013 for the rape of a 7-year-old girl. The incident occurred on 24.09.2013 when the victim's mother (informant) was at work. The appellant, a neighbour, took the minor victim to his house and committed rape. The victim's aunt (P.W.6) discovered the act and raised an alarm. The appellant was charged under Section 376(2)(i) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Sections 4 and 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO Act). The trial court convicted him and sentenced him to imprisonment for life (which shall mean imprisonment for the remainder of his natural life) and a fine of Rs.25,000/- with default stipulation, by virtue of Section 42 of the POCSO Act. The appellant appealed only against the sentence, conceding that he had no case on merits. He argued that the sentence was disproportionate considering his young age (20 years) and family background, and that the trial court had applied amended provisions which were not in force at the time of the offence. The High Court of Bombay at Nagpur, comprising Justices Vinay Joshi and Mrs. Vrushali V. Joshi, dismissed the appeal. The court noted that the appellant had committed a heinous offence on a 7-year-old child, and the sentence of life imprisonment for the remainder of natural life was proportionate. The court held that the young age of the accused was not a mitigating factor given the gravity of the crime. The appeal was dismissed, and the conviction and sentence were upheld.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Rape of Minor - Proportionality of Punishment - Sections 376(2)(i) IPC, Sections 4 and 6 POCSO Act, Section 42 POCSO Act - The appellant was convicted for committing rape on a 7-year-old girl. The trial court sentenced him to imprisonment for life (remainder of natural life) with fine. On appeal, the appellant conceded merits but argued that the sentence was harsh considering his young age and family background. The High Court held that the sentence was proportionate given the gravity of the offence and the age of the victim, and dismissed the appeal. (Paras 1-5)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the sentence of imprisonment for life (remainder of natural life) imposed on the appellant for the rape of a 7-year-old girl is disproportionate and requires reduction.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the conviction and sentence of life imprisonment (remainder of natural life) imposed by the trial court.
Law Points
- Proportionality of punishment
- Life imprisonment for remainder of natural life
- Section 376(2)(i) IPC
- Sections 4 and 6 POCSO Act
- Section 42 POCSO Act
- Amended provisions
- Young age of accused not mitigating factor
Case Details
2022 LawText (BOM) (12) 136
Criminal Appeal No. 419 of 2019
Vinay Joshi, Mrs. Vrushali V. Joshi
Shri R.M. Daga for Appellant, Shri H.D. Dubey, A.P.P. for Respondent
Pradip @ Golu s/o Suresh Dandge
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Criminal appeal against conviction and sentence for rape of a minor under IPC and POCSO Act.
Remedy Sought
Appellant sought reduction of sentence of life imprisonment (remainder of natural life) imposed by the trial court.
Filing Reason
Appellant challenged the judgment and order of conviction dated 21.02.2019 passed by the Special Judge, Akola in Sessions Case No.173/2013, primarily on the ground that the sentence was disproportionate.
Previous Decisions
The trial court convicted the appellant under Sections 376(2)(i) IPC and Sections 4 and 6 of POCSO Act and sentenced him to imprisonment for life (remainder of natural life) with fine of Rs.25,000/-.
Issues
Whether the sentence of imprisonment for life (remainder of natural life) imposed on the appellant is disproportionate and requires reduction.
Submissions/Arguments
Appellant's counsel conceded that the appellant has no case on merits and advanced submissions only on proportionality of punishment.
Appellant argued that the trial court applied amended provisions of IPC and POCSO Act which were not in force at the time of the offence in 2013.
Appellant submitted that considering his young age (20 years) and family background, the sentence is too harsh and disproportionate.
Ratio Decidendi
The sentence of imprisonment for life (remainder of natural life) for the rape of a 7-year-old girl is proportionate to the gravity of the offence. The young age of the accused is not a mitigating factor in such heinous crimes. The trial court correctly applied Section 42 of the POCSO Act to impose the higher punishment under IPC.
Judgment Excerpts
Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment and order of conviction dated 21.02.2019 passed by the Special Judge, Akola in Sessions Case No.173/2013, by which the appellant/accused was held guilty for the offence punishable under Sections 376 [2][i] of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 4 and 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO Act).
The learned Counsel for the appellant/accused has fairly conceded that the accused has no case on merits. He has advanced submission only to the extent of proportionality of punishment.
Considering the young age and family background of the accused, the sentence imposed by the trial Court is too harsh and disproportionate.
The prosecution case as unfolded before the trial Court is that the minor victim aged 7 years, was daughter of the informant.
We have considered the submissions. The appellant has committed a heinous offence of rape on a 7 years old child. The sentence imposed by the trial Court is proportionate.
Procedural History
The appellant was convicted and sentenced by the Special Judge, Akola on 21.02.2019 in Sessions Case No.173/2013. He filed Criminal Appeal No. 419 of 2019 before the Bombay High Court, Nagpur Bench. The appeal was closed for judgment on 16.11.2022 and judgment pronounced on 02.12.2022.
Acts & Sections
- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC): 376(2)(i)
- Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO Act): 4, 6, 42
