Poverty cannot be a reason to show leniency towards a rape accused, Bombay high court has said. Under Section 376 of Indian Penal Code, minimum punishment for rape is seven years's rigorous imprisonment, and a judge can give a lesser sentence for "adequate and special reasons".
But socio-economic status of accused is irrelevant in this regard, Justice A P Bhangale of Nagpur bench of HC said in a ruling last week. Satinath Raut, a labourer, was accused of raping a 22-year old woman at his village Warthi, in Bhandara district.
Raut entered the victim's house when she was alone except for her 3-year-old daughter, and raped the woman at knife-point. Sessions court in Bhandara awarded him seven years' imprisonment in February 2007. In the appeal before the HC, he pleaded that he had a large family comprising of five children and an ailing mother, therefore the sentence may be reduced.
Sessions court could have been more lenient with him on this ground, his lawyer argued. But upholding the sentence, Justice Bhangale said in his judgement that "socio-economic status of the accused or his religion, caste, creed are irrelevant factors", as per Supreme Court's earlier rulings. "His socio-economic status cannot constitute adequate and special reason. Punishment which is to be imposed upon the convict has to be proportionate to the crime committed. The Court has to bear in mind the society's cry for justice," the judge said.
But socio-economic status of accused is irrelevant in this regard, Justice A P Bhangale of Nagpur bench of HC said in a ruling last week. Satinath Raut, a labourer, was accused of raping a 22-year old woman at his village Warthi, in Bhandara district.
Raut entered the victim's house when she was alone except for her 3-year-old daughter, and raped the woman at knife-point. Sessions court in Bhandara awarded him seven years' imprisonment in February 2007. In the appeal before the HC, he pleaded that he had a large family comprising of five children and an ailing mother, therefore the sentence may be reduced.
Sessions court could have been more lenient with him on this ground, his lawyer argued. But upholding the sentence, Justice Bhangale said in his judgement that "socio-economic status of the accused or his religion, caste, creed are irrelevant factors", as per Supreme Court's earlier rulings. "His socio-economic status cannot constitute adequate and special reason. Punishment which is to be imposed upon the convict has to be proportionate to the crime committed. The Court has to bear in mind the society's cry for justice," the judge said.
0 comments:
Post a Comment