MANU/SC/0750/2004

True Court CopyTM EnglishUC

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Criminal Appeal No. 589 of 1999

Decided On: 13.09.2004

Appellants: State of Himachal Pradesh Vs. Respondent: Shree Kant Shekari

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:
Dr. Arijit Pasayat and P.P. Naolekar

JUDGMENT

Arijit Pasayat, J.

1. The factual matrix of this appeal is unfortunately related to sordid and obnoxious incidents where the respondent (hereinafter referred to as 'accused') who at the relevant point of time was working as a teacher gratified his animated passions and sexual pleasures by having carnal knowledge of his student, a girl of tender age. The result was that the sacred relation of teacher and his pupil was besmirched. As observed by this Court in Madan Gopal Kakkad v. Narain Dubey and Anr. MANU/SC/0509/1992 : [1992]2SCR921 such offenders are menace to the civilized society.

2. The State of Himachal Pradesh is in appeal against the judgment of a learned Single Judge of the Himachal Pradesh High Court directing acquittal of the accused who faced trial for alleged commission of offences punishable under Sections 376 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short the 'IPC'). The trial Court i.e. the Sessions Court, Kinnaur had convicted and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for 7 years and a fine of Rs. 2,000/- for the first offence and one year and a fine of Rs. 2,000/- for the second offence. In addition, the accused was directed to pay compensation of Rs. 10,000/- to the prosecutrix.

3. Sexual violence apart from being a dehumanizing act is an unlawful intrusion on the right of privacy and sanctity of a female. It is a serious blow to her supreme honour and offends her self-esteem and dignity - it degrades and humiliates the victim and where the victim is a helpless innocent child or a minor, it leaves behind a traumatic experience. 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, honour, reputation and not the least her chastity. Rape is not only a crime against the person of a woman, it is a crime against the entire society. It destroys, as noted by this Court in Shri Bodhisattwa Gautam v. Miss Subdhra Chakraborty MANU/SC/0245/1996 : AIR1996SC922 , the entire psychology of a woman and pushes her into deep emotional crisis. It is a crime against basic human rights, and is also violative of the victim's most cherished of the Fundamental Rights, namely, the Right to Life contained in Article 21 of the Constitution of India, 1950 (in short the 'Constitution') The Courts are, therefore, expected to deal with cases of sexual crime against women with utmost sensitivity. Such cases need to be dealt with sternly and severely. A socially sensitized judge, in our opinion, is a better statutory armour in cases of crime against women than long clauses of penal provisions, containing complex exceptions and provisos.

4. We do not propose to mention........