Punishment for abetment of rape of minor same as actual crime: Bombay HC

The sessions court in Nagpur had in March 2019 sentenced Ramteke to 10 years of rigorous imprisonment and fined him Rs 2,000.

Written by OMKAR GOKHALE

IN A significant ruling, the Nagpur bench of Bombay High Court has held that abetment of rape of a minor will attract the same punishment as the actual crime. In doing so, the court upheld a trial court sentence of a 28 year-old-man, who was convicted under Prevention of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, for abetting the rape of a 13-year-old girl.

The bench held that though the man had not raped the minor, he abetted it by locking the door of the house from outside, where the co-accused was committing the crime, and guarding it.

With this, the court held that as the convict had told the survivor that she would be rewarded with money for allowing the rape and also attempted to obstruct rescue attempts by her sister, he was equally guilty of the crime and deserved punishment similar to that of the rapist.

A bench of Justice V M Deshpande passed the judgment last month while hearing an appeal filed by Sunil Ramteke, who was convicted for abetting the rape of a 13-year-old girl in Nagpur district in August 2017.

The sessions court in Nagpur had in March 2019 sentenced Ramteke to 10 years of rigorous imprisonment and fined him Rs 2,000.

Arguing that his client had been falsely implicated, advocate Amit Band, appearing for Ramteke before the Nagpur bench, had claimed the survivor had given her consent to have sex with the main accused. The state government had opposed the plea and submitted that as per the statements of the survivor and the medical officer who examined her, Ramteke had pushed her into the house where the main accused was present and locked it from outside.

Additional Public Prosecutor M J Khan, appearing for the police, also submitted that the convict had told the survivor to allow the accused to have sex with her and in return he would pay her money. The police further maintained that the sessions court had noted that as Ramteke had tried to restrain the survivor’s sister from rescuing her and played an active role in the rape, the conviction was justified.

Referring to Section 109 of the Indian Penal Code, the bench observed that as no punishment has been prescribed for abetment of such a crime, the punishment for the actual crime would be applicable to the convict and upheld the sentence given by the trial court. “Evidence of the prosecution witnesses would clearly establish that it is the appellant who has intentionally extended aid to the co-accused to commit rape on the victim,” Justice Deshmukh noted.