No compromise in rape cases: Supreme Court blasts appellate judges for “puncturing” justice system

The Supreme Court today clarified its stance on “compromises” in rape cases. A Bench of Justices Dipak Misra and PC Pant unequivocally condemned the practice of allowing compromises in rape cases..In light of recent events (read Madras High Court Mediation Order), this order will serve as a definitive precedent on sentencing in rape cases..The Bench was hearing an appeal from the State of Madhya Pradesh against an MP High Court order in a rape case of a seven-year-old girl. Previously, a sessions court had convicted the respondent under Section 376 read with Section 511 of the IPC and sentenced him to five years imprisonment..When the appeal came before the high court, it was argued that there were contradictions in the testimony of prosecution witnesses. It was also noted by the high court judge that the parties had entered into a compromise and a petition seeking leave to compromise was filed before the sessions judge. However, the sessions judge dismissed it, as it was a non-compoundable offence. Nevertheless, the high court ended up converting the offence to one under Section 354 (assault with intent to outrage modesty of woman) and reduced the sentence to the period already undergone..The Supreme Court scathingly criticised the tendency of appellate judges to stray from precedents:.“…as a reminder, though repetitive, first we shall dwell upon, in a painful manner, how some of the appellate Judges, contrary to the precedents and against the normative mandate of law, assuming a presumptuous role have paved the path of unbelievable laconicity to deal with criminal appeals which, if we permit ourselves to say, ruptures the sense of justice and punctures the criminal justice dispensation system.”.Justice Misra further took note that the MP High Court had not referred to the evidence adduced at the trial stage and remitted the matter to the high court..Perhaps a thinly-veiled swipe at the recent Madras High Court “mediation” order, the Bench stated,.“We would like to clearly state that in a case of rape or attempt of rape, the conception of compromise under no circumstances can really be thought of…Any kind of liberal approach or thought of mediation in this regard is thoroughly and completely sans legal permissibility.”.To clarify things further, the Bench held that the two previous Supreme Court cases in which compromises were allowed – Baldev Singh and Ravindra would not serve as binding precedents, a point raised earlier on Bar & Bench..Mr. CD Singh appeared for Madhya Pradesh while Ms. Asha Jain Madan was the court appointed counsel for the Respondent..HT to @LiveLawIndia for the link to the judgment.