The Supreme Court of India recently upheld the conviction of a 40-year-old man accused of raping a 7-year-old girl within the premises of a temple. The bench, comprising Justice C. T. Ravikumar and Justice Rajesh Bindal, modified the sentence to 30 years of rigorous imprisonment, emphasizing the barbaric nature of the crime and the need for a deterrent punishment under Section 376 AB of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC).

The petitioner-convict had initially faced capital punishment, which was later commuted to life imprisonment by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh. The High Court, while acknowledging that the act was not brutal, deemed it barbaric, highlighting the nuanced difference between the two terms. The Supreme Court, in its recent ruling, echoed this sentiment and emphasized that the petitioner's actions, though not brutal, were undoubtedly barbaric.

The Court delved into the definitions of 'barbaric' and 'brutal' to underscore their distinct meanings. It noted that while the act may not have been brutal, it was undoubtedly wild, uncivilized, and crude, falling within the definition of 'barbaric.' The petitioner, who took the victim to a temple, disregarding its sanctity, disrobed both himself and the child before committing the heinous crime.

Recognizing the gravity of the offense, the Court stressed the importance of imposing a deterrent punishment for Section 376 AB, IPC conviction. The only alternative to life imprisonment, according to the Court, was a minimum of 20 years of imprisonment with a fine. The Bench clarified that 'barbaric' and 'brutal' should be understood as having distinctive meanings and not treated as synonyms.

After scrutinizing Section 376 AB, IPC, the Court observed that life imprisonment entailed confinement for the convict's natural life, with a minimum term of 20 years. In light of this, the Court referred to the case of Shiva Kumar @ Shiva @ Shivamurthy v. State of Karnataka [Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No(s). 3400/2017], emphasizing that the power to impose modified punishment within the IPC could only be exercised by the High Court and the Supreme Court.

The Court noted an oversight in the High Court's judgment, where it failed to impose separate sentences for certain offenses under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO Act). Considering factors such as the gravity of the crime, the victim's future well-being, the petitioner's age, and time served, the Supreme Court modified the sentence to 30 years, inclusive of time served. Additionally, a fine of Rs. 1 Lakh was imposed for the victim's medical expenses and rehabilitation.

In conclusion, the Supreme Court upheld the conviction under Section 376 AB, IPC, while modifying the sentence to 30 years of rigorous imprisonment, taking a strong stand against the barbaric act committed in a sacred place.

Case: Bhaggi @ Bhagirath @ Naran v The State Of Madhya Pradesh,

Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No.2888 of 2023.

Click to read/download judgment.