Supreme Court enhances sentence in child rape case: Bhaggi @ Bhagirath @ Naran vs. State of Madhya Pradesh (2024) INSC 82

Introduction

Date of the Judgment: 5 February 2024
Citation: 2024 INSC 82
Judges: C.T. Ravikumar, J. and Rajesh Bindal, J.

Can a life sentence for a heinous crime like the rape of a minor be further modified to ensure a more deterrent punishment? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this question in a case involving a man convicted of raping a 7-year-old girl. The court considered whether the High Court’s decision to commute a death sentence to life imprisonment was sufficient, given the gravity of the offense and the specific legal provisions involved.

The Supreme Court bench, comprising Justices C.T. Ravikumar and Rajesh Bindal, reviewed the case, focusing on the appropriate sentence under Section 376AB of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860, as amended by Act No. 22 of 2018, and the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO Act). The court examined the High Court’s decision to commute the death sentence to life imprisonment and considered whether a fixed-term sentence was more appropriate.

Case Background

On May 21, 2018, Munni Bai (PW-8), the grandmother of the victim, filed a police report stating that her 7-year-old granddaughter, X (PW-1), had been kidnapped and raped. The accused, Bhaggi @ Bhagirath @ Naran, was identified as the perpetrator. The trial court found that the prosecution successfully proved that the accused took the victim to Rajaram Baba Thakur Mandir, where he committed the rape after disrobing both of them. Witnesses (PWs-1, 2, and 14) testified that they found the accused violating the victim and that he fled upon their arrival. Medical evidence corroborated the testimonies, confirming the rape.

The trial court convicted the accused under Section 376AB of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860, as amended by Act No. 22 of 2018, and initially sentenced him to death. He was also convicted under Section 376(2)(i) of the IPC and Sections 3/4 and 5(d)/6 of the POCSO Act. However, no separate sentences were awarded for these offenses, considering the death penalty under Section 376AB of the IPC. The High Court commuted the death sentence to life imprisonment, which, under the relevant provisions, means imprisonment for the remainder of the convict’s natural life.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The Trial Court found the accused guilty based on witness testimonies and medical evidence, leading to a death sentence under Section 376AB of the IPC. The High Court, in Criminal Appeal No. 5725 of 2018, reviewed the case and commuted the death sentence to life imprisonment. The High Court considered the nature of the crime, noting that while it was reprehensible, it did not exhibit extreme depravity or barbaric brutality. The High Court also considered the possibility of the convict’s reformation and rehabilitation.

Legal Framework

The case primarily revolves around Section 376AB of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, which deals with the punishment for the rape of a woman under twelve years of age. The section states:

“376AB. Punishment for rape on woman under twelve years of age. —Whoever, commits rape on a woman under twelve years of age shall be punished with rigorous imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than twenty years, but which may extend to imprisonment for life, which shall mean imprisonment for the remainder of that person’s natural life, and with fine or with death: Provided that such fine shall be just and reasonable to meet the medical expenses and rehabilitation of the victim: Provided further that any fine imposed under this section shall be paid to the victim.”

Additionally, Section 42 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO Act) was considered, which addresses alternate punishments for offenses under both the POCSO Act and the IPC. It states:

“42. Alternate punishment. —Where an act or omission constitutes an offence punishable under this Act and also under sections 166A, 354A, 354B, 354C, 354D, 370, 370A, 375, 376, [376A, 376AB, 376B, 376C, 376D, 376DA, 376DB], [376E, section 509 of the Indian Penal Code or section 67B of the Information Technology Act, 2000 (21 of 2000)], then, notwithstanding anything contained in any law for the time being in force, the offender found guilty of such offence shall be liable to punishment only under this Act or under the Indian Penal Code as provides for punishment which is greater in degree.”

Arguments

Petitioner’s Arguments:

• The petitioner’s counsel argued that at the time of the offense, the petitioner was 40 years old.
• The High Court had noted that the crime was not barbaric or brutal, and there was no prior criminal record, suggesting a possibility of rehabilitation.
• The counsel contended that the alternative punishment under Section 376AB of the IPC, which is rigorous imprisonment for not less than 20 years with a fine, would be sufficient.
• The petitioner’s counsel argued that the life imprisonment should be altered to rigorous imprisonment for 20 years with a minimal fine, and no separate sentence should be awarded for other offenses.

Respondent’s Arguments:

• The State’s counsel argued that the High Court had thoroughly considered the facts and circumstances of the case, along with relevant precedents, before commuting the death sentence.
• The State contended that no grounds for further interference with the quantum of sentence had been made out by the petitioner.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court did not explicitly frame specific issues in a separate section. However, the core issue the court addressed was:

1. Whether the High Court’s commutation of the death sentence to life imprisonment for the offense under Section 376AB of the IPC was appropriate, or whether a fixed-term sentence should be imposed.
2. Whether the High Court was correct in not imposing a separate sentence for offences under POCSO Act.
3. Whether the High Court was correct in not imposing a fine for the offence under Section 376AB of the IPC.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:

Cases:

• Mulla v. State of U.P. [2010] 3 SCC 508 (Supreme Court of India): This case was cited to support the sentencing court’s authority to prescribe the length of incarceration, especially when a death sentence is replaced by life imprisonment.
• Bantu alias Naresh Giri v. State of M.P. [2001] 9 SCC 615 (Supreme Court of India): This case was considered by the High Court while commuting the capital sentence to life imprisonment.
• Amrit Singh v. State of Punjab [2006] 12 SCC 79 (Supreme Court of India): This case was considered by the High Court while commuting the capital sentence to life imprisonment.
• Rameshbhai Chandubhai Rathod (2) v. State of Gujarat [2011] 2 SCC 764 (Supreme Court of India): This case was considered by the High Court while commuting the capital sentence to life imprisonment.
• Shiva Kumar @ Shiva @ Shivamurthy v. State of Karnataka [2023] 9 SCC 817 (Supreme Court of India): This case was referred to while considering whether further interference with the sentence handed down for the conviction of the offence under Section 376 AB, IPC is warranted.
• Union of India v. V. Sriharan alias Murugan and Ors. [2016] 7 SCC 1 (Supreme Court of India): This Constitution Bench judgment was referred to regarding the power of the High Court and Supreme Court to modify punishments within the Penal Code.
• Swamy Shraddananda (2) alias Murali Manohar Mishra v. State of Karnataka [2008] 13 SCC 767 (Supreme Court of India): This case was referred to regarding the power of the High Court and Supreme Court to modify punishments within the Penal Code.

Legal Provisions:

• Section 376AB, Indian Penal Code, 1860: This section specifies the punishment for rape of a woman under twelve years of age, which includes rigorous imprisonment for a term not less than twenty years, extending to life imprisonment, and with fine or death.
• Section 42, Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012: This section addresses alternate punishments for offenses punishable under both the POCSO Act and the Indian Penal Code.

Judgment

How each authority was viewed by the Court:

• Mulla v. State of U.P. [2010] 3 SCC 508: The Court used this case to emphasize that sentencing courts have the power to determine the length of incarceration, especially when death sentences are commuted to life imprisonment.
• Bantu alias Naresh Giri v. State of M.P. [2001] 9 SCC 615, Amrit Singh v. State of Punjab [2006] 12 SCC 79, and Rameshbhai Chandubhai Rathod (2) v. State of Gujarat [2011] 2 SCC 764: These cases were acknowledged as having been considered by the High Court in its decision to commute the death sentence to life imprisonment.
• Shiva Kumar @ Shiva @ Shivamurthy v. State of Karnataka [2023] 9 SCC 817: The Court relied on this case to confirm that Constitutional Courts can impose modified or fixed-term sentences, including directing that a life sentence be for a fixed period of more than fourteen years.
• Union of India v. V. Sriharan alias Murugan and Ors. [2016] 7 SCC 1: The Court referred to this case to highlight that the power to impose modified punishment, including specific terms of incarceration or life imprisonment, can only be exercised by the High Court and Supreme Court.
• Swamy Shraddananda (2) alias Murali Manohar Mishra v. State of Karnataka [2008] 13 SCC 767: The Court used this case to support the same point as above.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the need to provide a deterrent punishment for the heinous crime of rape, particularly when the victim is a minor. The Court emphasized that while the High Court had considered the possibility of reformation and rehabilitation, the nature of the crime warranted a more stringent sentence. The Court also took into account the specific circumstances of the case, including the location of the crime (a temple) and the victim’s age.

The Court’s reasoning was a blend of factual considerations and legal principles. While the factual aspects of the case, such as the victim’s age and the location of the crime, were considered, the legal framework and the need for a deterrent punishment were the primary drivers of the decision.

The Court considered alternative interpretations, such as upholding the High Court’s decision, but rejected them based on the need for a more deterrent punishment and the specific legal provisions involved. The final decision was reached by balancing the mitigating factors (possibility of rehabilitation) with the aggravating factors (the heinous nature of the crime).

The Court reasoned that while the High Court had considered the possibility of reformation and rehabilitation, the nature of the crime warranted a more stringent sentence. The Court also took into account the specific circumstances of the case, including the location of the crime (a temple) and the victim’s age. The Court also considered the legal precedents and the provisions of Section 376AB of the IPC, which specifies a minimum punishment of 20 years for the rape of a minor under 12 years of age.

The Court also emphasized the impact of the crime on the victim, noting that every visit to a temple might remind her of the traumatic event. The Court also highlighted the potential adverse impact of the incident on her future married life.

The Court concluded that the High Court had not specifically addressed the appropriate sentence for the conviction under Section 376AB of the IPC, involving the rape of a 7-year-old victim not coupled with murder. The Court also noted that the High Court had not imposed a fine as required under Section 376AB of the IPC.

The Supreme Court quoted the following from the judgment:

“In the instant case, the petitioner -convict was aged 40 years on the date of occurrence and the victim was then only a girl, aged 7 years. Thus, the position is that he used a lass aged 7 years to satisfy his lust.”

“For that the petitioner -convict took the victim to a temple, unmindful of the holiness of the place disrobed her and himself and then committed the crime.”

“We have no hesitation to hold that the fact he had not done it brutally will not make its commission non -barbaric.”

There was no minority opinion in this case; the bench was unanimous in its decision.

Key Takeaways

• The Supreme Court has clarified that in cases of rape of a minor under Section 376AB of the IPC, a fixed-term sentence of at least 20 years, and potentially up to 30 years or more, may be imposed, even if the death sentence is commuted.
• The judgment emphasizes the need for deterrent punishment in cases of sexual violence against children.
• The court has also highlighted the importance of considering the impact of such crimes on the victim, including long-term psychological and emotional effects.
• The judgment reinforces that when a death sentence is commuted, the sentencing court must consider all aspects of the crime and the relevant legal provisions, including the imposition of a fine for the victim’s medical expenses and rehabilitation.
• The Supreme Court has reaffirmed that the power to impose modified punishment, including specific terms of incarceration or life imprisonment, can only be exercised by the High Court and Supreme Court.

Directions

The Supreme Court directed the following:

• The sentence imposed on the petitioner for the offense under Section 376AB of the IPC was modified to a sentence of rigorous imprisonment for a term of 30 years, including the period already undergone.
• The petitioner was directed not to be released from jail before the completion of the 30-year sentence.
• A fine of Rupees One Lakh was imposed, to be paid to the victim, in addition to the fine imposed by the Trial Court for the conviction under Section 363 of the IPC.
• The imprisonment awarded for the conviction under Section 363, IPC shall run concurrently.

Specific Amendments Analysis

There is no specific amendment analysis in the judgment.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that in cases of rape of a minor under Section 376AB of the IPC, the Supreme Court can modify a life sentence to a fixed term of imprisonment, and that such term should be at least 20 years, and can be 30 years or more. This judgment clarifies that while the possibility of reformation and rehabilitation is considered, the need for deterrent punishment in cases of sexual violence against children is paramount. The judgment also reinforces the power of the High Court and Supreme Court to modify sentences within the parameters of the Penal Code. The judgment also makes it clear that a fine must be imposed on the convict for the medical expenses and rehabilitation of the victim.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the Supreme Court partly allowed the special leave petition, modifying the High Court’s decision by enhancing the sentence to 30 years of rigorous imprisonment for the offense under Section 376AB of the IPC. The Court emphasized the need for deterrent punishment in cases of sexual violence against children and clarified the sentencing powers of the High Court and Supreme Court. The Court also directed that the petitioner should not be released before completing the 30-year sentence and imposed a fine of Rupees One Lakh to be paid to the victim.