Court awards 17 years imprisonment in minor rape case
JKUT (Jammu), September-14-2021-( JNF):- Presiding Officer Khalil Choudhary of Fast Track Court today sentenced a man to 17 years imprisonment and fine Rs 50000 for raping a 17-year-old girl in 2018. The convict, Rakesh Kumar of Kaleri Bhalwal Jammu, has also been sentenced to seven years of jail for kidnapping the 17-year-old girl.
According to the prosecution case that As per the prosecution story, the girl (name withheld) was sleeping in her home and was found missing in the morning in April 2018. A hunt was laid by family members but all in vain. During the search, it came to know that the girl was kidnapped by one Rakesh Kumar who happened to be her neighbor, the prosecution said. Kumar was also missing from his house. Based on a complaint by the girl’s father, police registered a case (FIR 35/2018) under section 363 RPC (kidnapping) and recovered his daughter from Ratlam Madhya Pradesh on 6 April 2018. Subsequently, after medical examination of the girl, section 376 (rape) was added to the case and after completion of the investigation, a chargesheet under section 363/376 RPC was laid before the court on 31 May 2018 against the accused where from charge sheet was committed to the court of Principle Sessions Judge, Jammu.
Presiding Officer Khalil Choudhary of Fast Track Court after hearing Advocate Raman Kumar for the accused whereas APP Suresh Sharma for the UT observed that it is not only the duty of the court, but social and legal obligations are clearly enjoined upon it to impose adequate punishment according to law while taking into consideration not only in the crime, but also the criminal. Furthermore, deterrence and reformation are primarily social goals. It is the duty of the court to impose adequate sentences, for one of the purposes of the requisite sentence is protection of the society and legitimate response to its collectively concise. The paramount principle that should be the guiding laser beam is that the punishment should be proportionate. Court said that it is answer of the law to the social concise. In a way, it is an obligation to the society which has reposed confidence and faith in the judicial system of the country to curtail the evil while imposing the sentence. It is court’s accountability to remind itself about its role and reverence for rule of law. It must evince rationalized judicial discretion and not an individual perception or a moral propensity. But, if in an ultimate eventuate the proper sentence is not awarded, the fundamental grammar of sentencing is guillotined. Law cannot tolerate it. Society does not withstand it and the sanctity of concise abhors. The old saying “Law hunts one’s past, cannot be allowed to be buried in an indecent manner and rainbow of mercy, for no fathomable reason should be allowed to rule”.
Court is of the opinion that ends of justice would be meted out, in case, accused is sentenced to simple imprisonment for seven years for commission of the offence under section 363 RPC and a fine of Rs. 25,000/- (Rupees Twenty five thousand) and rigorous imprisonment for ten years for the commission of the offence under section 376 (1) RPC and fine of Rs. 25,000/- (Rupees Twenty five thousand) and in default of the payment of fines, convict has to undergo further imprisonment for a period of three months in each offence. Accordingly, convict is sentenced. The period of detention of the convict during investigation and trial of this case shall be set off against the sentence awarded to the convict. Both the sentences shall run concurrently. JNF