Allow Cookies!
By using our website, you agree to the use of cookies
A person had committed the offence of unnatural sex prohibited under section 377 and 387 of the Indian Penal Code. The Court said that higher protection by society is necessary for the mentally ill victims of sexual assault. In the instant case, the convicted person committed the said offence on a mentally ill person. On hearing a criminal revision application filed by the convicted person, Ramachandra Yadav, the Court denied exhibiting any sort of leniency to the offender.
It is pertinent to note that the convicted person had undergone 4-5 years of the sentence. The facts of the case explain that the victim along with his friend left for the Siddhivinayak Temple on June 24, 2012. The convicted person, who is also a family friend of the victim, called the victim to reach him in his office, wherein the sexual offence was committed on the victim.
Further, whenever the convict leaves for his native, the victim was asked to meet his brother at his office and engage in such intercourse. Subsequently, the victim was dropped at his home since he was reluctant to act on the words of the convict. Thereafter, the victim reported the incident to his mother who lodged an FIR, and the same led to the arrest of the accused.
Medical evidence justified that he was subjected to forceful sexual intercourse. The Trial Court convicted the accused by referring to a report of a mental expert team of JJ Hospital, and the report revealed that the victim was affected by “mild mental retardation with IQ = 55” and his mental age was about 8 years. The Trial Court sentenced the accused to seven years, which was confirmed by the Additional Sessions, Judge.
The Hon’ble bench of the High Court comprising Justice Bhatkar held that no amount of leniency could be shown towards the convicted person. It was the person suffering from such mental retardation that needs protection by society. The court took into account the nature of the offence, gravity, victim’s age condition, social conditions and the conduct of the accused etc. The Court further observed that the accused had not only committed the offence against the victim, but also said the latter to involve in such intercourse with his brother. Taking the victim’s mental disorder for granted, the accused had raped him; and therefore, there was nothing material to back the necessity to abate the sentence granted to the convict. Consequently, the Court dismissed the revision application and upheld the lower court order.
86540
103860
630
114
59824