MP: High Court Expunges 'Kind' Word Referred to a Rape Convict From Record

Bhopal: Almost two weeks after the two-judge bench of Indore High Court reduced the life sentence of a rape convict to 20-year saying he was "kind enough" to leave the victim alive, the high court modified its order.

After the verdict drew criticism from various quarters for the use of "kind enough" in the rape case order, the Indore Bench of Madhya Pradesh High Court took suo-moto cognisance and modified and replaced a paragraph from its order on October 27, exercising its power granted under section 362 of the CrPc 1973.

Hearing a bail plea of Ram Singh, convicted in a rape case of a four-year-old girl child in 2007, a division bench of Justices Subhodh Abyankar and Satyendra Kumar Singh on October 18 had said, "In such circumstances, this Court does not find any error in appreciation of evidence by the trial Court and 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 four 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, 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. Accordingly, the criminal appeal is partly allowed, and the appellant be made to suffer the period of 20 years in accordance with law."

In the suo-moto cognisance order, the court said, "It is brought to the notice of this court that certain inadvertent mistake has crept in the judgment delivered by this court on October 18, 2022, wherein the word "Kind" has been used to refer to the appellant who stands convicted of rape."

The division bench of Justice Subodh Abhyankar and Justice Satyendra Kumar Singh stated, "It is apparent that the aforesaid mistake is obviously inadvertent in the context as this court has already held the act of appellant as demonic. In such circumstances exercising its power under section 362 of CrPC, the aforesaid para is modified and replaced."

The Court replaced paragraph 12 with, "In such circumstances, this Court does not find any error in appreciation of evidence by the trial Court and 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 four 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, considering the fact that he did not cause any other physical injury to the victim, this court is of the opinion that the life imprisonment can be reduced to 20 years rigorous imprisonment. Accordingly, the criminal appeal is partly allowed, and the appellant be made to suffer the period of 20 years in accordance with the law."

The High Court replaced "kind enough" with "he did not cause any other physical injury to the victim," saying, "para 12 of the judgement is hereby modified/corrected. This order be read conjointly with the order dated October 18."

WHAT WAS THE CASE?

Ram Singh, a resident of the Jhabua district, came to Indore and used to sell medical concoctions, herbs, etc. He was convicted of raping the four-year-old girl child on May 31, 2007, when she was playing alone in a ground in Indore. Both were neighbours and lived in tents.

According to the CSSourt, Singh lured her with an offer of one rupee, took her to his tent, and raped her. The child's grandmother ran to Singh's tent when she heard the screaming and discovered her naked child bleeding. The girl had surgery and was hospitalised for about a week.

Police booked Singh under IPC Sections 342 (wrongful confinement), 376 (rape), and Section 3(1)12 of SC and ST (Prevention of Atrocities Act) of 1989. The trial court handed him life imprisonment along with a fine of Rs 1,000.

In the plea, the convict appealed for a reduction of sentence to time already served in prison, but the court overruled it.

Singh's advocate Sharmila Sharma pleaded before the High Court that the accused had been falsely implicated, with no cogent evidence available on record to connect him to the offence, as the forensic report was not brought on record. He had already completed 15 years of jail and sought relief.

The bench ruled that the mere absence of the FSL report does not, and cannot, deter the court from appreciating the evidence available on record. The bench observed, "There is not only (an) eyewitness account available in the case but (the crime was) also duly corroborated by the medical evidence, as had been proved by Dr Ranjana Patidar."

The applicant's guilt, the court ruled, is "proved beyond doubt". It said Singh would serve five more years in jail before he walked free.