TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Supreme Court: Slight Penetration Equals Rape, Stresses Severe Punishment</h1> <h3>MADAN GOPAL KAKKAD Versus NAVAL DUBEY AND ANR.</h3> The Supreme Court overturned the High Court's conviction of the respondent under Section 354 IPC and instead convicted him under Section 376 IPC for ... - Issues Involved:1. Commission of rape under Section 376 IPC.2. Evaluation of evidence including extra-judicial confession and medical evidence.3. Delay in filing the First Information Report (FIR).4. Adequacy of the sentence imposed by the High Court under Section 354 IPC.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Commission of Rape Under Section 376 IPC:The Supreme Court reviewed the evidence and found that the respondent had committed rape on the victim, an 8-year-old girl. The Court noted that the High Court had erroneously convicted the respondent under Section 354 IPC (outraging modesty) instead of Section 376 IPC (rape). The evidence, including the victim's testimony and the extra-judicial confession, clearly established that the respondent had partially penetrated the victim's vulva, which is sufficient to constitute rape under Section 375 IPC. The Court emphasized that even slight penetration is sufficient for a rape conviction, and complete penetration is not necessary.2. Evaluation of Evidence Including Extra-Judicial Confession and Medical Evidence:The Supreme Court found that the extra-judicial confession made by the respondent was voluntary and not obtained by coercion. The confession was corroborated by the victim's testimony and medical evidence. The medical officer's findings of abrasion and redness on the victim's labia majora and minora, along with the victim's detailed account of the incident, supported the prosecution's case. The Court rejected the trial court's findings that the evidence was tainted and the confession was fabricated.3. Delay in Filing the First Information Report (FIR):The Supreme Court addressed the delay in filing the FIR, noting that the victim's parents initially hesitated due to fear of the respondent's influential family and the potential impact on their daughter's future. The Court held that the delay was reasonably explained and did not weaken the prosecution's case. The High Court had also found no adverse inference from the delay in lodging the report.4. Adequacy of the Sentence Imposed by the High Court Under Section 354 IPC:The Supreme Court found the sentence of a fine of Rs. 3,000 imposed by the High Court to be grossly inadequate given the gravity of the offence. The Court noted that the High Court had shown misplaced sympathy towards the respondent and failed to impose a sentence commensurate with the seriousness of the crime. The Supreme Court sentenced the respondent to seven years of rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 25,000, with the fine amount to be paid to the victim.Conclusion:The Supreme Court set aside the High Court's judgment convicting the respondent under Section 354 IPC and instead convicted him under Section 376 IPC. The Court imposed a sentence of seven years of rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 25,000, emphasizing the need for severe punishment for such heinous crimes to serve as a deterrent and uphold justice. The Court also highlighted the alarming increase in sexual offences against children and the necessity for judges to impose stringent punishments in such cases.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
