Case Note & Summary
The State of Goa appealed under Section 377 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 against the judgment and order dated 5th December 2008 passed by the trial court, which convicted the respondent Joaquim Oliver for offences punishable under Section 376 read with Section 511 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Section 8(2) of the Goa Children's Act, 2003. The respondent was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/-. The prosecutrix was a 7-year-old girl, and the incident occurred on 2nd October 2004 at about 4:00 p.m. in the veranda of an Anganwadi school at Chinchawada, Ambaulim. The FIR was lodged by the mother of the prosecutrix on 3rd October 2004 at Quepem Police Station. The respondent had already undergone the substantive sentence of two years but had not paid the fine. The State contended that the sentence was grossly inadequate given the young age of the victim and the gravity of the offence. The High Court agreed, holding that the sentence of two years was manifestly inadequate and not commensurate with the seriousness of the crime. The court enhanced the sentence to rigorous imprisonment for seven years and maintained the fine of Rs.5,000/-, with default simple imprisonment for six months. The appeal was allowed accordingly.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Sentence Enhancement - Inadequacy of Sentence - Section 377 CrPC, Section 376 read with Section 511 IPC, Section 8(2) Goa Children's Act, 2003 - State appealed against inadequate sentence of two years RI for attempt to rape a 7-year-old child - Court held that the sentence was grossly inadequate considering the young age of the victim and the gravity of the offence - Enhanced sentence to seven years RI and fine of Rs.5,000/- (Paras 2-5).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the sentence of two years rigorous imprisonment imposed on the respondent for attempt to rape a 7-year-old child is inadequate and requires enhancement.
Final Decision
Appeal allowed. The sentence of the respondent is enhanced from two years rigorous imprisonment to seven years rigorous imprisonment. The fine of Rs.5,000/- is maintained, and in default of payment of fine, the respondent shall undergo simple imprisonment for six months.
Law Points
- Sentence enhancement
- inadequacy of sentence
- Section 377 CrPC
- Section 376 IPC
- Section 511 IPC
- Section 8(2) Goa Children's Act 2003
- child rape
- prosecutrix age 7 years
Case Details
2011 LawText (BOM) (03) 161
Criminal Appeal No.72 of 2009
Mr. M. S. Joshi, Special Public Prosecutor for the appellant; Mr. G. Teles, Advocate for the respondent
State of Goa (Through Quepem Police Station)
Joaquim Oliver, Son of Lawrence Oliver
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Appeal by State against inadequacy of sentence under Section 377 CrPC
Remedy Sought
Enhancement of sentence imposed on respondent for attempt to rape a 7-year-old child
Filing Reason
The State considered the sentence of two years RI as grossly inadequate
Previous Decisions
Trial court convicted respondent under Section 376 read with Section 511 IPC and Section 8(2) Goa Children's Act, 2003 and sentenced to two years RI and fine of Rs.5,000/-
Issues
Whether the sentence of two years rigorous imprisonment for attempt to rape a 7-year-old child is inadequate?
Submissions/Arguments
Appellant (State): The sentence is grossly inadequate considering the young age of the victim and the gravity of the offence.
Respondent: Not mentioned in the provided text.
Ratio Decidendi
The sentence imposed by the trial court was manifestly inadequate and not commensurate with the gravity of the offence, particularly given the young age of the victim (7 years). The court has the power under Section 377 CrPC to enhance the sentence to a proper and adequate term.
Judgment Excerpts
By this appeal preferred by the State of Goa under Section 377 of Cr.P.C., the appellant takes exception to the judgment and order dated 5th December, 2008 on the ground that the sentence imposed on the respondent is inadequate.
Indisputably, the respondent has undergone substantive sentence imposed upon him and he has not paid fine.
The prosecutrix was aged about 7 years at the time of commission of offence.
Procedural History
The trial court convicted the respondent on 5th December 2008 for offences under Section 376 read with Section 511 IPC and Section 8(2) of the Goa Children's Act, 2003, sentencing him to two years RI and fine of Rs.5,000/-. The State appealed against the inadequacy of sentence under Section 377 CrPC. The respondent had already served the substantive sentence but not paid the fine. The High Court heard the appeal and delivered judgment on 28th/29th March 2011.
Acts & Sections
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC): Section 377
- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC): Section 376, Section 511
- Goa Children's Act, 2003: Section 8(2)
