Rape convict’s sentence reduced to time served after victim married him and had two children: Madhya Pradesh High Court

The appellant was prosecuted for allegedly entering the victim’s house on 26 November 2009, threatening and gagging her, and committing rape when she was alone. He was also alleged to have threatened her with death if she reported the incident.

The victim lodged a written report on 27 November 2009, following which Crime No. 611/2009 was registered under Sections 450, 376 and 506-B of the IPC.

The trial court convicted the appellant under those provisions and sentenced him to seven years’ rigorous imprisonment each under Sections 450 and 376 IPC, two years’ rigorous imprisonment under Section 506-B IPC, along with fines.

During the appeal, the appellant and the victim filed applications seeking permission to compromise. The compromise was verified by the Registrar, who recorded that it was voluntary and free from coercion; the victim stated that she had married the appellant and that they had two children.

The appellant did not challenge the conviction on merits and sought reduction of sentence to the period already undergone, approximately three months, on the basis of the compromise.

Whether the conviction of the appellant under Sections 450, 376 and 506-B IPC was sustainable on the evidence on record despite the appellant’s limited challenge in appeal?

Whether a compromise between the appellant and the victim, though legally incapable of compounding offences under Section 320 Cr.P.C., could be considered for reducing the substantive sentence in a non-compoundable offence?

Whether, in the circumstances of the case, the substantive sentence should be reduced to the period already undergone?

The Court applied Section 374(2) Cr.P.C. governing appeals against conviction by a Sessions Court, and Sections 450, 376 and 506-B IPC, under which the appellant stood convicted.

It recognised that the offences were non-compoundable under Section 320 Cr.P.C.; therefore, the compromise could not itself result in acquittal or formal compounding.

However, relying on Ishwar Singh v. State of Madhya Pradesh, AIR 2009 SC 675, the Court held that a compromise may be considered as a relevant circumstance while determining the substantive sentence, even where the offence is non-compoundable.

It further relied on Unnikrishnan alias Unnikuttan v. State of Kerala, AIR 2017 SC 1745, and Murali v. State, (2021) 1 SCC 726, for the principle that an amicable settlement may, in exceptional circumstances, justify reduction of sentence while maintaining the conviction.

The High Court independently scrutinised the trial court’s findings notwithstanding the appellant’s limited challenge. It found that the prosecution case was supported by the evidence of eyewitnesses and other material on record, and that the conviction was based on cogent reasoning without perversity or illegality.

The Court rejected the compromise as a basis for formally compounding the offences because Sections 450, 376 and 506-B IPC were non-compoundable.

Nevertheless, applying the principles in Ishwar Singh, Unnikrishnan and Murali, it treated the verified and voluntary settlement, the victim’s marriage to the appellant, their two children, their continued cohabitation, and the appellant’s period of incarceration as relevant mitigating circumstances for sentencing.

On that basis, it concluded that the ends of justice would be met by reducing the substantive imprisonment to the period already undergone.

The appellant’s convictions under Sections 450, 376 and 506-B IPC were affirmed.

The substantive sentence of imprisonment was, however, reduced to the period already undergone, without treating the compromise as formal compounding of the offences.

As the appellant was on bail, his bail bond was ordered to stand discharged, and the appeal was disposed of accordingly.