Path: Home » NEWS against MEN » Rape Case » Madhya Pradesh High Court Removes Controversial Remark in Rape Convict’s Sentence Order

Madhya Pradesh High Court Removes Controversial Remark in Rape Convict’s Sentence Order

Madhya Pradesh High Court Edits Judgment That Called Rape Convict “Kind Enough” for Not Killing Survivor

The Madhya Pradesh High Court has corrected a controversial statement made in a rape case verdict, where it had earlier said the convict was “kind enough” to let the survivor live. The original observation drew widespread criticism from legal experts and the public.

On October 18, a division bench of Justices Subodh Abhyankar and Satyendra Kumar Singh reduced the life sentence of a rape convict, Ramsingh, to 20 years of rigorous imprisonment. While doing so, the Court had commented that the convict was kind because he didn’t kill the survivor, a minor girl under the age of 12. This statement was found in paragraph 12 of the judgment.

Following public backlash, the Court suo motu (on its own) modified the order on October 27, removing the reference to the convict’s “kindness.”

“It has come to the Court’s notice that an unintended error appeared in the earlier judgment where the word ‘Kind’ was used. This was not appropriate as the Court had already referred to the act as demonic,” stated the revised order.

The updated version of paragraph 12 now states:

“However, considering the fact that he did not cause any other physical injury to the victim, this court is of the opinion that the life imprisonment can be reduced to 20 years’ rigorous imprisonment.”

The rest of the judgment, including the reduced sentence, remains unchanged. The Court clarified that the new order must be read together with the original one dated October 18.

The original case involved an appeal by Ramsingh against a conviction by the Additional Sessions Judge, Indore, under the Indian Penal Code (IPC) for raping a minor. The conviction was supported by strong medical evidence and testimonies from key prosecution witnesses. The High Court upheld the conviction but reduced the sentence, citing the absence of additional physical harm to the survivor.

This case has reignited debates around judicial language sensitivity and the appropriate treatment of serious crimes like rape involving minors.

Be a part our social media community:
Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/IndianMan.in?mibextid=ZbWKwL
Instagram:
https://www.instagram.com/indianman.in?igsh=MWZ2N3N0ZmpwM3l3cw==

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *