Show seriousness in deciding quantum of punishment: HC

Stressing the need for showing all seriousness in deciding quantum of sentence, the Madras High Court bench here today criticised the Assistant Sessions Judge of Kovilpatti in Thoothukudi district for converting the question on quantum of punishment to be asked to an accused and recording his answer a mere formality.
Partially allowing a criminal appeal by G Muthuvel who was charged with raping a six-year-old girl in 2006, Justice S Nagamuthu said the trial court which convicted the accused had left a blank in the judgement without recording the reply of the accused.
Later, they had filled it in writing in the computer- generated judgement that he wanted either lesser punishment or admonition.

"It showed the trial court had virtually converted the question posed to the accused and his reply on the quantum of punishment as a mere formality or a ritual. There appeared to be no consideration of the plea of the accused," the judge said.
"In this case even before recording the plea of the accused, the entire findings were recorded by the trial court on this quantum of sentence, which does not satisfy the legal requirements at all" and refused to acquit the accused on that ground.
On the imposition of a total fine of Rs 1.54 lakh by the trial court on Muthuvel, the Judge said the fine amount was disproportionate to the economic status of the accused, who was a poor man.

While confirming the conviction under four sections, the judge reduced the fine amout to Rs 1.04 lakh.

He also reduced rigorous imprisonment under IPC 377 (unnatural offences) and 376 (punishment for rape) from 10 years to seven years. Under IPC 506(1)(criminal intimidation) and 342 (punishment for wrongful confinement) the accused was sentenced to one year RI each. The sentence would run concurrently, the judge said, setting off the period of the sentence already undergone.
According to prosecution, Muthuvel lured the girl, who was playing with her friends, with a sweet and then raped her. The girl, who suffered injuries, complained about the incident to her mother.

Later he also criminally intimidated the child. When the parents questioned the accused about the incident, he told them that he would again do so if the child came near his house, following which the child's mother lodged a police complaint.