The Supreme Court of India today (1st July 2015) held that there can be no mediation / compromise in rape cases and the court should not strike down the sentence/ reduce the sentence only on the basis of the Compromise / Mediation that was done between the accused and the prosecutrix (victim). A bench of the Supreme Court, comprising of Justice Dipak Misra and Justice Prafulla C. Pant, went on to say that rape is a crime against the body of a woman which is her own temple.
This ruling came in the case of State of M.P. Versus Madanla, wherein the prosecutrix was a 7 year old girl when the rape was committed. The prosecutrix narrated the whole story to her mother after which a case was instituted against the respondent. The Trial court had convicted the respondent under section 376(2)(f) read with Section 511 of IPC. The trial court convicted the accused on the basis of the evidence that was adduced before the trial court. A compromise petition was filed before the Ld. Trial Court but the Trial Court did not accept the compromise petition as the offence under section 376 IPC is a non compoundable offence and such offences are against the state. The case then went in appeal to the High Court. The High Court took notice of the said compromise petition and converted the charge from section 376 to section 354 IPC and also restricted the sentence of the accused to the term that has already been undergone by him.
The Supreme Court allowing the appeal preferred by the State of Madhya Pradesh observed that,
“16. The aforesaid view was expressed while dealing with the imposition of sentence. We would like to clearly state that in a case of rape or attempt of rape, the conception of compromise under no circumstances can really be thought of. These are crimes against the body of a woman which is her own temple. These are offences which suffocate the breath of life and sully the reputation. And reputation, needless to emphasise, is the richest jewel one can conceive of in life. No one would allow it to be extinguished. When a human frame is defiled, the “purest treasure”, is lost. Dignity of a woman is a part of her non-perishable and immortal self and no one should ever think of painting it in clay. There cannot be a compromise or settlement as it would be against her honour which matters the most. It is sacrosanct. Sometimes solace is given that the perpetrator of the crime has acceded to enter into wedlock with her which is nothing but putting pressure in an adroit manner; and we say with emphasis that the Courts are to remain absolutely away from this subterfuge to adopt a soft approach to the case, for any kind of liberal approach has to be put in the compartment of spectacular error. Or to put it differently, it would be in the realm of a sanctuary of error. We are compelled to say so as such an attitude reflects lack of sensibility towards the dignity, the elan vital, of a woman. Any kind of liberal approach or thought of mediation in this regard is thoroughly and completely sans legal permissibility.”
The Supreme Court also discussed a few authorities and observed that,
“18. Recently, in Ravindra (supra), a two-Judge Bench taking note of the fact that there was a compromise has opined thus:-
“17. This Court has in Baldev Singh v. State of Punjab, invoked the proviso to Section 376(2) IPC on the consideration that the case was an old one. The facts of the above case also state that there was compromise entered into between the parties.
- In the light of the discussion in the foregoing paragraphs, we are of the opinion that the case of the appellant is a fit case for invoking the proviso to Section 376(2) IPC for awarding lesser sentence, as the incident is 20 years old and the fact that the parties are married and have entered into a compromise, are the adequate and special reasons. Therefore, although we uphold the conviction of the appellant but reduce the sentence to the period already undergone by the appellant. The appeal is disposed of accordingly.”
- Placing reliance on Shimbhu (supra), we also say that the judgments in Baldev Singh (supra) and Ravindra (supra) have to be confined to the facts of the said cases and are not to be regarded as binding precedents.” (emphasis and italics supplied)
Finally, the Supreme Court remitted the case back to the High Court for a reappraisal of the evidence and for a fresh decision without referring to the evidence of any of the witnesses.
It is pertinent to mention that in our previous articles (here and here) at Tilak Marg, we had criticised the aforesaid two Supreme Court judgments in the cases of Baldev Singh v. State of Punjab and Ravindra v. State of Madhya Pradesh, respectively, in which the rape convicts had been let off with reduced punishments. Now, the judgment of the Supreme Court in the above case has vindicated our criticism of the above two cases in our articles.
Read the full judgment of the Supreme Court in the above case, here.
