Case title:
Karan Chettri & Ors v. State of Sikkim
Date of Order:
12th June 2024
Bench:
Hon’ble Mrs. Justice Meenakshi Madan Rai
Hon’ble Mr. Justice Bhaskar Raj Pradhan
Parties:
Appellant(s): 1. Karan Chettri
2. Nima Sherpa @ Nani Ko Bau
Respondent: State of Sikkim
SUBJECT:
The Hon’ble High Court of Sikkim (hereinafter referred to as the ‘High Court’ or ‘the Court’) dealt with a matter involving gang rape. The appellants were alleged to have broken into the victims’ house and sexually assaulted them. Following the FIR, the Trial Court finding them guilty of the offences and sentenced them to 12 years of rigorous imprisonment and a fine, with additional charges under section 376D of IPC. The appellants pleaded not guilty and argued that there was insufficient evidence to establish their guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The High Court majorly upheld the trial court’s sentence but identified and an error in the order. It stated that the trial court had made an error in ordering a sentence of mere 12-years, and initiated proceedings to enhance the sentence to 20 years, mandatory minimum sentence for gang rape, in compliance with the statutory requirements.
IMPORTANT PROVISIONS:
The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC):
- Section 372(2)
- Section 313
- Section 377
- Section 386
- Section 401
- Section 397
The Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC):
- Section 450: deals with punishment for trespass
- Section 376D: Deals with punishment for gang rape
- Section 376(2)(l): deals with commission of rape on a woman suffering from mental or physical disability.
- Section 34: deals with offences committed by several people in furtherance of common intention.
The Mental Health Care Act, 2017:
- Section 105
- Section 2
The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (Evidence Act):
- Section 118
- Section 9
OVERVIEW:
- On 10.01.2021, the appellants allegedly broke into the complainant’s house at midnight when only his mother (PW2) and sister-in-law (PW8) were in the house.
- It was alleged that the appellants assaulted the women physically and sexually the 2 women.
- Following the assault, the complainant promptly reported the incident at the Yangang Police Station and lodged an FIR.
- The Police registered a case under Sections 376D and 34 of the IPC against the appellants.
- The Trial Court framed individual charges against the appellants under sections 376(D), 376(2)(l), 34, and 450 of IPC. Both appellants pleased “not guilty” to the charges.
- Upon examining the evidence on record, hearing 12 witnesses and the arguments, the trial court found them guilty and sentenced them to 12 years of rigorous imprisonment along with a fine of Rs. 10,000/-.
- The appellants are now contesting the trial court’s order before the High Court.
ISSUES RAISED:
- Whether the prosecution has established that PW2 was suffering from any mental illness or retardation at the time of the alleged crime?
- Whether both the appellants - A1 and A2 – were guilty of committing the crime of rape on the victims?
- Whether the sentence pronounced by the trial court was in compliance with the law?
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED BY THE APPELLANT(S):
- The victims had issues in identifying the offenders. They had referred to the appellants by the wrong names and even provided the wrong addresses. As per the ruling in Jose alias Pappachan v. Sub-Inspector of Police, Koyilandy & Anr, the identity of the accused must be established beyond a reasonable doubt.
- The witness testimonies also had discrepancies with certain witnesses alleging that only one of the 2 offenders had assaulted the victims, creating doubt about the involvement of both parties.
- The respondents lacked sufficient evidence to prove the appellants’ guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. The medical evidence provided by PW7 were inconsistent with the injuries of the appellant thus rendering it inconclusive.
- The trial court had erroneously convicted them under section 376D of IPC, claiming that the evidence on record did not prove that the appellants had acted in furtherance of common intention to commit the offence of gang rape.
- Upholding the trial court’s acquittal of charges under section 376(2)(l) of IPC, arguing that there was no evidence to suggest that victim PW2 was suffering from any mental deficiency at the time of the incident.
- It was argued that the trial court was unreasonably harsh in the pronouncement of its judgment, by failing to consider mitigating factors and the possibility of rehabilitation.
- Considering the irregularities in the trial, the appellants’ rights to a fair trial had been compromised, and the sentence should thus be set aside.
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED BY THE RESPONDENT(S):
- The respondents emphasized that the witness testimonies were corroborated by the evidence presented before the court which was sufficient to establish the guilt of appellants beyond a reasonable doubt.
- The medical evidence provided by PW7, such as the vaginal tear and laceration, confirmed that the victims had sustained injuries consistent with the assault.
- Minor discrepancies in the identification process should not undermine the overall credibility of the witnesses or the respondents’ case.
- Defending the appellants’ conviction under section 376D of IPC, the respondent argued that the appellants had acted in furtherance of a common intention. They maintained that even if one appellant had not physically committed the act, they were complicit under the said law.
- The appellants’ conviction under section 450 of IPC was also upheld, stating that there was sufficient evidence to prove that the appellants had entered the property unlawfully.
- The judgment pronounced by the trial court was appropriate as supported by the ruling in Harendra Nath Chakraborty v. State of West Bengal wherein it was held that when a minimum sentence is prescribed by the Parliament, it should ordinarily be imposed, except in exceptional cases.
- The nature of the crime committed by the appellants was too heinous to warrant leniency or reduction in sentence.
- Additionally, it was pointed out that the High Court has powers to enhance the sentence suo motu.
JUDGEMENT ANALYSIS:
- Upholding the trial court’s sentence, the High Court noted that the both the appellants were complicit offenders under section 376D of IPC, justifying the trial court’s conviction.
- However, the High Court did not find sufficient evidence against the appellants to justify their conviction under section 376(2)(l), which pertains to rape of a woman suffering from mental illness. The appellants were consequently acquitted of this charge.
- The Court identified the legal error in the trial court’s order, wherein it had pronounced a 12-year rigorous imprisonment for the appellants. It was held that it was mandatory under law to pronounce a minimum sentence of 20 years for conviction under section 376D of IPC.
- The trial court’s ruling was deemed to be in non-compliance with the law and insufficient.
- Despite the State not appealing for enhancement of the sentence, the High Court reiterated its powers under Section 397 r/w section 401 of CrPC to enhance the sentence suo motu.
- It highlighted the necessity of imposing a sentence reflecting the gravity of the offence and aligning with the legislative intent.
- The Appeal was partly allowed by the High Court.
CONCLUSION:
The convictions of the appellants under Sections 376D and 450 of IPC was upheld by the High Court, however the Court acquitted them of charges under section 376(2)(l) on grounds of insufficiency of evidence. Additionally, the High Court found the trial court’s 12-year sentence instead of the required minimum sentence of 20 years for gang rape erroneous. It initiated proceedings to increase the sentence to meet the statutory requirements. The appeal was partly allowed and the other convictions by the trial court were upheld whilst recognizing the discrepancies. No orders were given as to costs.
