STATE OF KARNATAKA Vs. PUTTARAJA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A rapist not only causes physical injuries but more indelibly leaves a scar on the most cherished possession of a woman i.e. her dignity, chastity, honour and reputation. The depravation of such animals in human form reach the rock bottom of morality when they sexually assault children, minors and like the case at hand, a woman in the advance stage of pregnancy.

(2.) We do not propose to mention name of the victim, Section 228-A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short the IPC) makes disclosure of identity of victim of certain offences punishable. Printing or publishing name of any matter which may make known the identity of any person against whom an offence under Ss. 376, 376-A, 376-B, 376-C or 376-D is alleged or found to have been committed can be punished. True it is, the restriction does not relate to printing or publication of judgment by High Court or Supreme Court. But keeping in view the social object of preventing social victimization or ostracism of the victim of a sexual offence for which Section 228-A has been enacted, it would be appropriate that in the judgments, be it of this Court, High Court or lower Court, the name of the victim should not be indicated. We have chosen to describe her as victim in the judgment.

(3.) 21st August, 1985 is a day on which the victim suffered unfathomable physical agony and traumatic ignominy that one can conceive of at the hands of the accused-respondent. The libidinousness and the lustful design of the accused crossed all borders of indecency and he raped the victim in the presence of her husband, unmindful of the shattering mental trauma the latter (PW-1) suffered. Law was set into motion and he accused was charged for commission of offence punishable under Section 376 of the IPC. He was found guilty by the trial Court which imposed sentence of 5 years imprisonment, (though the minimum sentence prescribed is 7 years) and fine of Rs. 2,000/-. What seems to have weighed with the trial Court for inflicting a lesser sentence was age of accuseds parents, his dependent sisters, wife and two young children. Accused questioned correctness of the conviction and sentence before the Karnataka High Court. While the conviction was maintained, the sentence was reduced by a learned single Judge to period of custody already undergone i.e. 46 days.