Supreme Court enhances sentence in heinous child sexual assault case: State of Rajasthan vs. Gautam (2023) INSC 903 (11 October 2023)

Date of the Judgment: 11 October 2023
Citation: 2023 INSC 903
Judges: Abhay S. Oka, J., Pankaj Mithal, J.

Can the judiciary show leniency to a perpetrator of a heinous crime against a child? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this question in a case involving the sexual assault of a five-year-old girl. This judgment highlights the court’s stance on the severity of such crimes and their impact on victims and society. The Supreme Court, in this case, has enhanced the sentence of the accused, emphasizing that the gravity of the offense outweighs considerations of the accused’s age and socio-economic background.

Case Background

The case revolves around a horrific incident that occurred on 8th May 2014, in Kota, Rajasthan. Rakesh (PW-3), the complainant, reported that his five-year-old daughter was sexually assaulted by Gautam Harijan, a co-tenant in their residence. Rakesh and his wife, Smt. Kajod, had left their children with a neighbor, Lad Bai. Upon returning, they found their daughter bleeding from her private parts. The child disclosed that Gautam Harijan had taken her to his room, removed her clothes, and assaulted her. The Trial Court convicted Gautam, but the High Court reduced the sentence. The State of Rajasthan appealed to the Supreme Court seeking enhancement of the sentence.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The Trial Court convicted the respondent, Gautam, under Sections 363 (kidnapping), 342 (wrongful confinement), 376(2)(i) and 376(2)(m) (rape) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC), and Sections 3, 4, 8, and 10 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO). The Trial Court sentenced Gautam to life imprisonment for the remainder of his natural life for the offenses under Section 376(2)(i) and (m) of the IPC. However, the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan, while confirming the conviction, reduced the sentence to rigorous imprisonment for twelve years. This reduction in sentence prompted the State of Rajasthan to appeal to the Supreme Court, seeking an enhancement of the punishment.

Legal Framework

The case involves several key legal provisions. Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC), deals with the offense of rape. Specifically, clauses (i) and (m) of sub-section (2) of Section 376 are relevant here. Clause (i) applies to the rape of a girl under sixteen years of age, and clause (m) is invoked when the offender causes grievous bodily harm, disfigurement, or endangers the victim’s life during the act of rape. The Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO), further addresses sexual offenses against children. Sections 8 and 10 of POCSO deal with punishment for sexual assault and aggravated sexual assault, respectively.

The relevant sections are:

• Section 363 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC): Deals with the offence of kidnapping.
• Section 342 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC): Deals with the offence of wrongful confinement.
• Section 376(2)(i) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC): Addresses rape of a girl under sixteen years of age.
• Section 376(2)(m) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC): Addresses rape causing grievous bodily harm, disfigurement, or endangering life.
• Section 8 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO): Deals with punishment for sexual assault.
• Section 10 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO): Deals with punishment for aggravated sexual assault.
• Section 376E of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC): Addresses punishment for repeat offenders of rape.

Arguments

The State of Rajasthan argued that the High Court had shown undue leniency towards the respondent, Gautam, by reducing his sentence. The State contended that the High Court had overlooked the fact that the victim was only five to six years old, and had also ignored the medical evidence presented by Dr. Vinod Garg (PW-6), a gynaecologist who examined the victim. The State submitted that showing leniency based solely on the young age of the accused would send the wrong message to society.

Ms. Shweta Garg, the amicus curiae appointed to represent the respondent, argued that the minimum punishment for the offenses under clauses (i) and (m) of sub-section (2) of Section 376 of the IPC is ten years, and the High Court had already imposed a sentence of twelve years. She also pointed out that the respondent had been incarcerated since 8th May 2014, and that the factors of the respondent’s young age and caste, considered by the High Court, were relevant. She argued that the respondent must have already served his sentence, including remissions, and therefore no interference was needed.

The innovativeness of the argument was that the State argued that the High Court had erred in showing leniency to the accused, highlighting the gravity of the crime against a minor. The amicus curiae focused on the fact that the High Court had already imposed a sentence exceeding the minimum prescribed under the law and that the respondent had been incarcerated for a long time, thus implying that the sentence was sufficient.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court considered the following issue:

1. Whether the High Court was justified in reducing the sentence imposed by the Trial Court for the offences punishable under clauses (i) and (m) of sub-section (2) of Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860?

The sub-issue that the court dealt with under the above issue was whether the factors of young age and caste of the accused were relevant for reducing the sentence.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

The Supreme Court considered the following legal provisions:

• Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC): Deals with the offense of rape.
• Section 376E of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC): Addresses punishment for repeat offenders of rape.
• Sections 8 and 10 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO): Deals with punishment for sexual assault and aggravated sexual assault, respectively.

The Court did not rely on any previous cases in this judgment.

Judgment

The Supreme Court enhanced the sentence imposed by the High Court, emphasizing the severity of the crime and its impact on the victim.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court was deeply influenced by the heinous nature of the crime and its devastating impact on the young victim. The Court emphasized that the victim’s childhood was destroyed, and her life was ruined due to the trauma. The Court also highlighted the need for the punishment to be commensurate with the gravity of the offense to maintain public confidence in the justice system. The Court was also of the view that the financial condition of the accused should not be a consideration for leniency in such cases.

The court’s reasoning was primarily influenced by the legal provisions and the severity of the offense. The factual aspects of the case, such as the victim’s age and the nature of the assault, also played a significant role in the court’s decision.

The Court rejected the argument for leniency based on the young age and caste of the accused, stating that these factors were not sufficient to outweigh the severity of the crime. The Court emphasized that the punishment must be commensurate with the gravity of the offense to maintain public confidence in the justice system.

The Supreme Court stated, “The offence is so gruesome and heinous that it will impact the victim for her entire life. The childhood of the victim has been destroyed. The victim’s life has been ruined due to the trauma and everlasting impact on her mind. It must have converted the victim into a psychological wreck.”

The Court further noted, “The punishment must be commensurate with the gravity of the offence. When it comes to sentencing, the Court is not only concerned with the accused but the crime as well.”

The Court also observed, “An accused has no caste or religion when the Court deals with his case. We fail to understand why the caste of the accused has been mentioned in the cause title of the judgments of the High Court and the Trial Court. The caste or religion of a litigant should never be mentioned in the cause title of the judgment.”

Key Takeaways

• The Supreme Court emphasized that in cases of heinous crimes against children, the severity of the offense and its impact on the victim should be the primary considerations for sentencing.
• The Court clarified that the age and socio-economic background of the accused are not sufficient grounds for leniency in such cases.
• The judgment underscores the importance of victim compensation and rehabilitation, directing the Rajasthan State Legal Services Authority to ensure immediate payment of compensation.
• The Court also recommended that the State or Legal Services Authorities should ensure that child victims of sexual assault are provided with counselling by trained professionals.
• The Court has also directed that the copies of the judgment be sent to the Secretaries of the concerned departments of the State.
• The Court has also directed that the copies of the judgment be sent to the Secretary of the Ministry of Women and Child Development of the Central Government.
• The Court has also directed that the caste or religion of a litigant should never be mentioned in the cause title of the judgment.

Directions

The Supreme Court issued the following directions:

• The respondent was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for fourteen years for the offenses under Section 376(2)(i) and (m) of the IPC.
• The respondent is not entitled to remission during the enhanced sentence.
• The substantive sentence for the other offenses was maintained.
• The direction of the Trial Court regarding the sentence in default of payment of fine was maintained.
• The fine amount, after retaining Rs. 5,000 for the State, shall be paid to the victim as compensation.
• The Secretary of the Rajasthan State Legal Services Authority was directed to ensure immediate payment of compensation to the victim.
• If the respondent had already been released, he was to be arrested and sent to prison to undergo the remaining sentence.
• The Registry was directed to forward a copy of the judgment to the Secretary of the Ministry of Women and Child Development of the Central Government.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that in cases of heinous crimes against children, the severity of the offense and its impact on the victim should be the primary considerations for sentencing. The Court has also emphasized that the age and socio-economic background of the accused are not sufficient grounds for leniency. This judgment reinforces the principle that the punishment must be commensurate with the gravity of the offense, particularly in cases involving vulnerable victims. This case also clarifies that the caste or religion of a litigant should never be mentioned in the cause title of the judgment.

Conclusion

In the case of State of Rajasthan vs. Gautam, the Supreme Court enhanced the sentence of the accused, Gautam, for the heinous crime of sexually assaulting a five-year-old girl. The Court emphasized that the gravity of the offense and its impact on the victim should be the primary considerations for sentencing, rather than the age or socio-economic background of the accused. The judgment underscores the importance of victim compensation and rehabilitation, and serves as a strong message against leniency in such cases.