"Young Age Of Accused Should Have Been Taken Note Of While Sentencing”: Madhya Pradesh Reduces Sentence Of Convict In Sodomy Case

Even though the accused was not covered under the definition of Juvenile at the time of the alleged incident, the Court stated that the Trial Court and Appellate Court should have taken cognizance of the young age of the accused while determining the sentence of imprisonment.

A Single Bench of Justice Sanjeev S Kalgaonkar observed, “The learned First Appellate Court committed no error in concluding that the petitioner was not covered under the definition of Juvenile at the time of alleged incident. Still, Trial Court and Appellate Court should have taken cognizance of young age of the accused while determining the sentence of imprisonment. No criminal antecedent is alleged against the petitioner.No criminal antecedent is alleged against the petitioner. He is under stigma of alleged offence of sodomy for the last 23 years. He has already undergone custody for more than 09- 1/2 months.”

Advocate Rajendra Singh Yadav appeared for the petitioner, while P.P. Saket Udhaniya represented the respondents.

The accused had filed a criminal revision under Section 397 read with Section 401 of the Code of the CrPC challenging the judgment of conviction under Section 377 of the IPC.

The case of the prosecution was that an FIR was registered against the accused after he was allegedly found “committing intercourse against the nature” with a minor 5-year-old victim.

The Trial Court convicted the accused under Section 377 of the IPC and sentenced him to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for three years with a fine of Rs.10k. The Appellate Court upheld the sentencing the the conviction.

The High Court noted that the testimony of the victim was “unshaken” in cross-examination and neither was there any material contradiction or inconsistency in the evidence of the victim.

“The testimony of Victim is duly corroborated by his father and mother who stated that when they reached near river they saw that their son (victim) was lying naked on ground and accused Pappu was committed sodomy with the victim,” the Court noted.

Consequently, the Court held, “No case is made out for interference in the concurrent findings regarding conviction of accused/revision- petitioner for the offence punishable under Section 377 IPC.”

Regarding the sentencing of the accused, the Gwalior Bench noted that the alleged incident occurred in February 2001, while the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 came into force in April 2001. However, the Court stated that the Juvenile Justice Act of 1986 was in force which defined the term “Juvenile” as “a boy who has not attained the age of sixteen years or a girl who has not attained the age of eighteen years”.

Therefore, the Court stated, “So far as the sentence is concerned, Trial Court and Appellate Court ignored the fact that accused was aged around 17 years at the time of incident…it is apparent that learned First Appellate Court committed no error in concluding that the petitioner was not covered under the definition of Juvenile at the time of alleged incident.”

Accordingly, the High Court partly allowed the petition.

Cause Title: Pappu v. The State Of Madhya Pradesh

Click here to read/download the Order