MP HC reduces punishment of rape convict from life term to 20 years for being ‘kind enough to leave girl alive’

According to the order announced on October 18, the incident took place on May 31, 2007 near Indore’s ITI ground, when the four-year-old survivor had followed her grandmother as she stepped out of their hut to relieve herself

Bhopal: The Indore bench of the Madhya Pradesh high court has reduced the life sentence of a rape convict to 20 years’ rigorous imprisonment, saying that he was “kind enough to leave the girl alive”.

The convict, Ram Singh (40), was arrested on charges of raping a four-year-old girl in Indore in 2007, and was sentenced for life by an additional sessions judge (Indore) in April 2009. He challenged the order in the high court in May 2009.

The convict, Ram Singh (40), was arrested on charges of raping a four-year-old girl in Indore in 2007, and was sentenced for life by an additional sessions judge (Indore) in April 2009. He challenged the order in the high court in May 2009.

Hearing the plea on September 28, a bench of Justices Subodh Abhyankar and Satyendra Kumar Singh observed that: “The 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 4 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 (girl) alive, this court is of the opinion that the life imprisonment can be reduced to 20 years’ rigorous imprisonment.”

The criminal appeal is partly allowed and the appellant be made to suffer the period of 20 years in accordance with law, the order added. The convict has already completed the imprisonment of 15 years in jail.

According to the order announced on October 18, the incident took place on May 31, 2007 near Indore’s ITI ground, when the four-year-old survivor had followed her grandmother as she stepped out of their hut to relieve herself. Singh, then 25 years old, resided next to the survivor’s hut in a makeshift tent.

As per the police complaint, Singh called the survivor in his tent on the pretext of giving her a rupee and raped her. Soon after, the survivor’s grandmother and father heard her crying for help and rushed to Singh’s tent. When they entered the tent, they saw the minor lying on the ground bleeding and the convict naked. The convict ran away from the spot soon after he saw the survivor’s father.

The girl was rushed to district hospital where the doctors confirmed rape. According to Dr Ranjana Patidar at the district hospital in Indore, the survivor sustained a third degree perineal tear in the incident.

Singh was subsequently booked on charges of rape under section 376 (rape) of the Indian Penal Code, and Section 3(1)12 of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.

The counsel for appellant argued that he has been falsely implicated in the case as barring eyewitnesses there is no cogent evidence available on record to connect him with the offence as even the FSL report is not brought on record in support of the case of the prosecution.

The court, however, observed: “It is true that although the articles recovered from Ram Singh and the vaginal smear of the girl were sent to a forensic laboratory, the FSL report is not available on record which again shows the gross negligence on the part of the police in prosecuting such heinous offences. However, mere absence of the FSL report does not and cannot deter the Courts to appreciate the evidence available on record in its proper perspective and as has already been observed by this Court, that there is not only eyewitness account available in the case but is also duly corroborated by the medical evidence as has been proved by Dr Ranjana Patidar, the guilt of the appellant is proved beyond reasonable doubt.”

The government advocate Sudhanshu Vyas, who was defending the survivor, said, “The order came on October 18 and the court proceedings stopped due to vacation. After vacation, we will discuss the matter with the advocate general to challenge it.”