E-Paper
HC enhances sentence of Goa man convicted of raping minor from 1 to 7 years
It noted the minor did not accuse Lamani of forcing himself upon her but the question of consent of the victim in this matter is irrelevant given her age
The High Court Of Bombay at Goa has enhanced the sentence of a man convicted of raping a minor from one to seven years, saying he committed the crime after a 2013 amendment to the law, which did away with the discretion granted to trial courts to award less the minimum sentence.
Motilal Lamani, the convict, was arrested after the minor’s mother accused him of allegedly forcing her daughter to undergo an abortion. He was charged with rape. Sexual intercourse with a minor with or without consent is considered rape.
The trial court sentenced Lamani to one-year rigorous imprisonment for raping the minor in 2014 when she was 17, saying she “willingly went” with him as she was in love with him and “had sexual intercourse.” It considered their relationship a mitigating factor while awarding Lamani a sentence lower than the minimum prescribed -- seven years.
The high court on Thursday ruled the “reduction of the sentence below the minimum prescribed in this case is considered to be without jurisdiction and relying upon the proviso which was deleted in the year 2013 is [a] serious error.”
“Since there is no discretion left to reduce the sentence below the minimum prescribed, the order of awarding a sentence of only one year, therefore, needs interference.”
A bench of Justices M S Sonak and Bharat Deshpande ruled since Lamani was found guilty of the offence punishable under Section 376, which relates to the rape of a minor, the minimum sentence was required to be awarded.
The bench noted the minor did not accuse Lamani of forcing himself upon her. “The question of consent of the victim in this matter is irrelevant as she was minor at the relevant time...” It added Lamani is not entitled to claim the benefit of the so-called consent.
“The victim being minor in age, is not capable of giving any consent in accordance with law, and therefore, her so-called consent to the sexual intercourse with the Accused cannot be a ground of defence.”
