Chhattisgarh High Court Reduces Life Sentence for Rape to 10 Years: “Extraordinary Circumstances Must Be Shown for Maximum Punishment Under Section 376 IPC”

Court’s Decision:

The Chhattisgarh High Court partly allowed the appeal against the judgment of the trial court. It:

1. Reduced the appellant’s sentence for the offence under Section 376 IPC from life imprisonment to 10 years of rigorous imprisonment.
2. Set aside the conviction under Section 366 IPC, holding that the prosecution failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the victim was abducted.

The court emphasized that life imprisonment for rape under Section 376 IPC can only be imposed when special or extraordinary circumstances are demonstrated, which were absent in this case.

Facts:

1. The incident occurred on October 27, 2018, when the appellant allegedly abducted an 18-year-old victim and sexually assaulted her against her will near a gas godown in Korba, Chhattisgarh.
2. When the victim’s mother could not locate her, a neighbor informed her that the appellant and the victim were confined at a nearby school. The mother reported the incident to the police, leading to an FIR.
3. Medical examination revealed:
   • Five external injuries on the victim, including lacerations on the elbows, knees, wrist, and swelling on the head.
   • The hymen was ruptured, blood was found on the private parts, and the victim complained of pain during the examination.
   • Signs of recent sexual intercourse were confirmed.
4. Forensic analysis of the victim’s and appellant’s clothes and bodily samples detected semen and human sperm, corroborating the victim’s account.

Issues:

1. Whether the appellant’s act constituted rape under Section 376 IPC.
2. Whether the appellant abducted the victim under Section 366 IPC.
3. Whether the sentence of life imprisonment for rape was justified without extraordinary circumstances.

Petitioner’s Arguments:

1. Consent: The appellant argued that the victim voluntarily sat on his motorcycle, as per her own statement in court, indicating consent. This was presented to challenge the charges of both abduction and sexual assault.
2. Sentencing: The appellant submitted that the trial court imposed the maximum punishment of life imprisonment under Section 376 IPC without citing any extraordinary or special reasons, and requested the minimum sentence of 10 years rigorous imprisonment instead.

Respondent’s Arguments:

1. The State countered that the prosecution had sufficiently proven the appellant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt through medical and forensic evidence.
2. It argued that the sentence imposed by the trial court was justified based on the facts and severity of the crime.

Analysis of the Law:

1. Section 376 IPC (Rape): The Penal Code prescribes a minimum sentence of 10 years rigorous imprisonment for rape, extendable to life imprisonment. Courts must justify imposing life imprisonment by pointing to aggravating or extraordinary circumstances.
2. Section 366 IPC (Abduction with intent to compel marriage or force sexual intercourse): The prosecution must prove the victim was abducted against her will. If the victim voluntarily accompanies the accused, this charge does not stand.

Precedent Analysis:

The court examined the legislative intent of the 2018 amendments to Section 376 IPC. The amendments sought to ensure stringent punishment for rape but also mandated that courts assess the circumstances of each case. The court stressed that life imprisonment should not be imposed arbitrarily but only when aggravating circumstances exist.

Court’s Reasoning:

1. Conviction Under Section 376 IPC:
   • The medical and forensic evidence corroborated the victim’s account of sexual assault. The injuries on her body, the ruptured hymen, and the presence of semen confirmed the occurrence of non-consensual sexual intercourse.
   • While the victim stated in court that she voluntarily sat on the appellant’s motorcycle, this did not extend to consent for sexual intercourse. The court ruled that her injuries clearly showed force was used.
2. Conviction Under Section 366 IPC:
   • The victim admitted in her testimony that she voluntarily sat on the appellant’s motorcycle and was not forcibly taken. Hence, the court found that the prosecution failed to establish the element of abduction.
3. Sentencing:
   • The trial court imposed life imprisonment under Section 376 IPC without citing any extraordinary circumstances or aggravating factors. The High Court found this unjustified and modified the sentence to the statutory minimum of 10 years rigorous imprisonment.

Conclusion:

1. The court upheld the conviction under Section 376 IPC, but reduced the sentence to 10 years rigorous imprisonment.
2. The court set aside the conviction under Section 366 IPC due to lack of evidence proving abduction.
3. The fine imposed by the trial court remained unchanged, and the appellant was directed to serve his modified sentence.

Implications:

1. Proportionality in Sentencing: This judgment reinforces that courts must impose life imprisonment under Section 376 IPC only in cases involving special or extraordinary circumstances. Arbitrary imposition of maximum punishment is discouraged.
2. Clarification on Abduction: The ruling clarifies that voluntary actions of the victim, such as accompanying the accused, can negate charges of abduction under Section 366 IPC.
3. Reliance on Evidence: The judgment highlights the importance of corroborating victim testimonies with medical and forensic evidence to ensure fair adjudication.

Also Read – Delhi High Court Grants Bail to Foreign National Accused of Overstaying Visa; Clarifies Distinction Between Judicial Custody and Executive Detention Under the Foreigners Act