Accused Targeted Most Vulnerable In Locality: Kerala HC Sentences 4 Men To 30 Years’ Imprisonment For Gang Rape Of Migrant Woman Labourer
The Kerala High Court sentenced four men to undergo rigorous imprisonment of 30 years for committing gang rape of migrant woman labourer.
The Court was deciding a batch of criminal appeals filed by the accused men against the judgment of the Sessions Judge by which they were convicted and sentenced under Sections 120B(1), 366, 376D, 394, 323, 342, 34, 411, and 414 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
A Division Bench comprising Justice A.K. Jayasankaran Nambiar and Justice Syam Kumar V.M. remarked, “It is clearly discernible from the evidence that the accused had targeted the most vulnerable in the locality viz., migrant women labourers, and had lured PW1 and PW2 under the pretext of offering them a job, exploiting the situation whereby the very nature of their avocation required them to travel to isolated unknown places along with, and on the instruction of, strangers. The intersectional analysis as discussed in Patan Jamal Vali (supra) requires us to take note of the distinct experience of a subset of women who exist at the intersection of varied identities. PW1, the victim in this case, squarely falls within that subset and she finds herself placed at an intersection of varied identities as a woman from another State, with limited linguistic capabilities to understand and interact with the people in this State and as a laborer belonging to one of the socially, culturally and financially weaker sections of society.”
The Bench added that the underlying structures of inequality that made the victim vulnerable and which the accused effectively exploited to her utter detriment, cannot be lost sight of while deciding the sentence to be imposed on the accused.
Advocates Parameswaran Nair, Renjith B. Marar, and A.S. Faridin represented the appellants while Public Prosecutor Alex M. Thombra represented the respondents.
Facts of the Case -
In 2015, the accused nos. 1 to 4 (appellants) hatched a criminal conspiracy to commit abduction, rape, and robbery and accordingly, they reached Edapally Toll in an autorickshaw driven by A4 where two migrant women labourers were waiting in anticipation of work. The said accused persons took the two women in the said auto, under the pretext of taking them for cutting grass near a Ladies hostel of Cochin University. En route to the location, A2 and A3 boarded the auto near a market, indicating that they were also workers for cutting grass. The said women were taken to a beaten track in the middle of a barren hill near a building. Thereafter, A1 laid the victim (one of the migrant women) on the ground, and while A2 caught her shoulders, A1 had sexual intercourse with her by force and without consent. Meanwhile, A2 forcibly removed her gold chain with thali and a ring. While the other migrant woman tried to prevent the accused, A3 and A4 wrongfully confined her and took Rs. 150/- from her. Then A2 to A4 had sexual intercourse with the victim against her will. Thereafter, A4, with the intention of outraging her modesty, intentionally took her nude photographs and when it was objected by her, he beat her on the face and other body parts and took her earrings, mobile, and Rs. 400/- from her shirt pocket.
A1 to A4 also threatened both women with dire consequences if they revealed the incident to anybody and also threatened to publish the nude photographs of the victim on the internet. As per the prosecution, A5 and A6 with the knowledge that A1 to A4 had committed such heinous offence, permitted them to reside in their house and received gold ornaments, knowing that the same were stolen. Hence, a case was registered and thereafter, the Trial Court found A1 to A4 guilty under Sections 120B(1) IPC and under Sections 366, 376D, 394, 323 and 342 read with Section 120B of IPC and sentenced them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life, which shall mean imprisonment for the remainder of their natural life, and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- each under Section 120B(1) of IPC. Whereas, A5 and A6 were found guilty under Section 212 read with Section 34 IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- each under Section 212 read with Section 34 IPC. Being aggrieved by such conviction, the accused/appellants approached the High Court.
The High Court in view of the above facts observed, “Guided by the dictum in Patan Jamal Vali (supra), where the court elucidated on the need to take adequate note of the intersectional identity of the victim and the additional vulnerabilities that he/she would have been subjected to due to the overlapping identities that he/she may possess, we note that the victim PW1 is a woman, aged 38 years answering to the description of a Tamil migrant labourer who was displaced from her place of birth by social and economic circumstances. She had migrated from her native place Dharmapuram in Tirupur District in the State of Tamil Nadu to Kerala looking for an avocation to eke out a living. She is also a mother of two children. She possesses all the vulnerabilities that an individual of such a migrant labourer group usually suffers from including linguistic handicap and socio-cultural alienation which the accused preyed upon, on the fateful day when she had been out looking for work so as to sustain herself and her family.”
In the appeals, the Court found A1 to A4 guilty of the charges under Sections 366, 376D, 323, and 342 of the IPC and while doing so, it also set aside the conviction of A1 to A4 under Section 120B(1) of the IPC, the conviction of A1 and A3 under Section 394 of IPC and the conviction of A5 under Section 212 read with Section 34 IPC. However, it affirmed the conviction of A2 and A4 under Section 394 of IPC and that of A6 under Sections 212, 411 and 414 of the IPC.
“Considering the nature and gravity of the offences for which they now stand convicted, we are of the view that A1 to A4 do not deserve any leniency in the matter of the sentence to be imposed for the offence under Section 376D IPC. At any rate, the minimum punishment that has to be mandatorily imposed while confirming a conviction under Section 376D is 20 years imprisonment. However, the age of the accused, their behaviour during the 9 years of incarceration that they have already undergone, the possibility of their rehabilitation and assimilation back into the society can be taken into account while determining the punishment to be accorded to them, short of the maximum punishment that the trial court deemed fit to impose on them”, said the Court.
The Court emphasised that balancing the interests of the victim and the accused in the appeals based on the relevant principles, the ends of justice would be met by imposing the sentences on the accused.
“Accused Nos.1 to 4 are each sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 30 years, and to pay a fine of Rs.25,000/- [Rupees Twenty five thousand only] each for the offence under Section 376D of the IPC. … Accused Nos.2 and 4 are each sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years, and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- [Rupees Ten thousand only] each for the offence under Section 394 of the IPC. In default of payment of the fine amount, they shall undergo two months rigorous imprisonment”, it directed.
The Court sentenced Accused No.6 to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 3 years, and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- for the offence under Section 212 of the IPC.
“Fine amount of Rs.1,75,000/-, if realised, shall be paid to PW1 as compensation under Section 357(10)(b) of the Cr.PC”, it also ordered.
Accordingly, the High Court disposed of the criminal appeals.
Cause Title- Athul v. State of Kerala and Anr. (Neutral Citation: 2024:KER:40029)
Appearance:
Appellants: Advocates Parameswaran Nair, Renjith B. Marar, A.S. Faridin, C.R. Syamkumar, V.A. Haritha, Mary Reshma George, P.M. Mazna Mansoor, Sooraj T. Elenjickal, and Sandhya R. Nair.
Respondents: Public Prosecutor Alex M. Thombra, Advocates Ramesh P., Fathima Nargis K.A., Biniyamin K.S., Sangeerthana M., and Bleimy T. Jose.
