2020 (12) TMI 1290 - SC - Indian Laws

Allegation of rape - reversal of order of acquittal passed by the learned trial Court - whether the High Court is justified in interfering with the order of acquittal passed by the learned trial Court and thereby convicting the accused? - disadvantage of the mental sickness and low IQ of the victim, was taken - scope and ambit of Section 378 Cr.P.C. - HELD THAT - In the facts and circumstances of the case the High Court is justified and, as such, has not committed any error in reversing the order of acquittal passed by the learned trial Court and convicting the accused for the offences under Sections 376 and 506 IPC. Being the first appellate Court, the High Court was justified in reappreciating the entire evidence on record and the reasoning given by the learned trial Court. The High Court has specifically found that the IQ of the victim was 62 which was based on the history and mental state examination of the victim. The High Court has also come to the conclusion that the victim was not in a position to understand the good and bad aspect of the sexual assault. Merely because the victim was in a position to do some household works cannot discard the medical evidence that the victim had mild mental retardation and she was not in a position to understand the good and bad aspect of sexual assault. It appears that the accused had taken disadvantage of the mental illness of the victim. It is required to be appreciated coupled with the fact that the accused is found to be the biological father of the baby child delivered by the victim. Considering the evidence on record, more particularly the deposition of PW11 and PW22 and even the deposition of the other prosecution witnesses, the High Court has rightly observed that case would fall under Section 375 IPC and has rightly convicted the accused for the offence under Section 376 IPC. Even as per clause fifthly of Section 375 IPC, a man is said to commit rape , if with her consent when, at the time of giving such consent, by reason of unsoundness of mind, is unable to understand the nature and consequences of that to which she gives consent - On evidence, it has been established and proved that the victim was mentally retarded and her IQ was 62 and she was not in a position to understand the good and bad aspect of sexual assault. The accused has taken disadvantage of the mental sickness and low IQ of the victim. From the medical evidence, it emerges that IQ 62 falls in the category of mild mental retardation . It has also emerged that the mental status and IQ are determined on the basis of the injuries and activities. IQ of a person can be known on the basis of the questions, activities and the history of a patient. Therefore, even if there might be some contradictions with respect to language known by the victim, in that case also, it cannot be said to be the major contradictions to disbelieve the entire medical evidence on the mental status of the victim. Therefore, the High Court is justified in reversing the order of acquittal and convicting the accused for the offences under Sections 376 506 IPC. Submission on behalf of the accused that he has already undergone four years RI out of seven years RI awarded to him and is married and has two children and therefore a lenient view may be taken - HELD THAT - It is required to be noted that as such the High Court has also taken a very lenient view by imposing the minimum sentence of seven years RI. It is required to be noted that it is a case of sexual assault on a victim whose IQ was 62 and was mentally retarded and that accused has taken undue advantage of the mental sickness/illness of the victim. A person suffering from mental disorder or mental sickness deserves special care, love and affection. They are not to be exploited. In the present case, the accused has exploited the victim by taking disadvantage of her mental sickness/illness. Therefore, no interference of this Court against the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court convicting the accused is called for. Appeal dismissed.

Issues Involved:
1. Delay in lodging the FIR.
2. Mental condition of the prosecutrix.
3. Reappreciation of evidence by the High Court.
4. Acquittal by the trial court and subsequent conviction by the High Court.
5. Sentencing and leniency.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Delay in Lodging the FIR:
The appellant argued that there was a delay of four months in registering the FIR from the time the incident occurred. The learned trial court acquitted the accused partly on this ground, suggesting that the delay indicated possible fabrication. The High Court, however, found that the delay was understandable given the mental condition of the prosecutrix and the fear instilled by the accused. The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's view, emphasizing that the delay should not benefit the accused, especially considering the mental state of the victim.

2. Mental Condition of the Prosecutrix:
The prosecutrix was alleged to be mentally retarded with an IQ of 62, indicating mild mental retardation. The trial court had acquitted the accused, doubting the prosecutrix's mental incapacity to understand the consequences of the assault. However, the High Court, upon reappreciation of medical evidence, concluded that the prosecutrix was not in a position to understand the good and bad aspects of the sexual assault. The Supreme Court affirmed this finding, noting that the medical evidence clearly established the prosecutrix's mental retardation and inability to consent.

3. Reappreciation of Evidence by the High Court:
The appellant contended that the High Court erred in reappreciating the evidence and reversing the acquittal. The Supreme Court reiterated that the High Court, as the first appellate court, has full power to review and reappreciate evidence. The High Court was justified in its reappreciation, especially given the trial court's erroneous assumptions and the compelling medical evidence of the prosecutrix's mental condition.

4. Acquittal by the Trial Court and Subsequent Conviction by the High Court:
The trial court had acquitted the accused, citing the delay in lodging the FIR and questioning the prosecutrix's mental state. The High Court, however, reversed this acquittal, convicting the accused under Sections 376 and 506 IPC. The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision, emphasizing that the High Court's reappreciation of evidence was within legal parameters and justified given the facts of the case.

5. Sentencing and Leniency:
The appellant requested leniency, citing that he had already undergone four years of imprisonment out of the seven-year sentence and had family responsibilities. The Supreme Court noted that the High Court had already taken a lenient view by imposing the minimum sentence of seven years. Given the severity of the crime—sexual assault on a mentally retarded victim—the Supreme Court found no grounds for further leniency. The Court emphasized the need for stringent punishment in such cases to prevent exploitation of vulnerable individuals.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, affirming the High Court's judgment convicting the accused under Sections 376 and 506 IPC. The Court upheld the seven-year sentence, emphasizing the need for strict punishment in cases involving sexual assault on mentally retarded individuals. The decision underscored the importance of reappreciating evidence in appellate jurisdiction and the necessity of protecting vulnerable victims from exploitation.

← Previous Next →