RAM KISHAN AGGARWALA Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The circumstances of this case establish beyond doubt that there is no law of limitation on the lascivious propensities of man and that age cannot wither overpowering moods of voluptuousness.

(2.) The appellant, a 65 years' old businessman of Cuttack is alleged to have committed rape on a girl, 6 years of age, on June 24, 1967. The scene is a colony where poor people live. The victim, Anjali (P. W. 6), is playing with her playmate Ashok and another little girl Soudhamini on the verandah of the house of the rather well-to-do Marwari hexagenerian. The time is around 11 a. m. The old man lifts Anjali in an erotic impulse, takes her upstairs, places her on his lap and, after removing the tiny garment or underwear, goes through the exercise of inserting his genitals into the vagina of the victim. There is bleeding consequent on the violent violation and them the appellant brings the little belle downstairs crying. She tearfully complains to her mother about what had happened and within a short while the aunt and uncle of the little girl convey the first information to the police who, after investigation, prosecute the appellant for an offence under Section 376, I. P. C.

(3.) The Assistant Sessions Judge, who tried the case, found the offence of rape proved and punished the offender condignly by sentencing him to three years' rigorous imprisonment plus a fine of Rs. 5000/-. The Sessions Judge, who heard the appeal, confirmed the conviction but showed commisseration on sentence, probably persuaded by the advanced age of the culprit and reduced the period of imprisonment to six months and fine to Rs. 500/-. The appellant evoked the revisional powers of the High Court but, repelling the contentions - factual and legal - the learned Judge held that the conviction and sentence were amply justified. The last court in the country - that is, the Supreme Court - has been moved by the desparate appellant and his counsel Shri D. Mukherjee has been given a long and patient hearing by us both on the question of culpability and the quantum of punishment. We have not been persuaded to differ from the finding of guilt and the imposition of sentence. In such cases, brevity in the statement of reasons should be the rule at the Supreme Court level and so we are not inclined to launch on a lengthy discussion of the many points we listened to.