K Srinivasan
SUNITA Devi versus the State of Bihar is likely to be a landmark judgment that will be referred to time and time again in the years to come. In May this year, the Supreme Court delivered its verdict on the issue, but before we come to what the country’s highest court had to say let us look at the whole episode and how it landed in the SC.
It was concerning a POCSO (The Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, 2012 that aims to protect children from sexual abuse and offences) case that was completed in flat 24 hours and the judgment, too, delivered on the same day. The accused had no time to defend himself and within 48 hours, he was sentenced to death!
Here’s what happened
A complaint was lodged against the accused on December 2, 2021 by the victim’s mother outlining that the accused had committed rape.
The crime occurred on December 1, 2021 and the case was registered under POCSO.
The accused was arrested on December 12, 2021.
A chargesheet was filed on January 12, 2021.
The Investigating Officer recorded the testimony of four witnesses in a single day. aOn January 24, 2022, the remaining witnesses, including the IO were examined. aOn January 27, 2022 the POCSO court imposed the death penalty on the accused. On appeal, the High Court determined that there was no compliance by the trial court with respect to multiple sections of the CrPC (Code of Criminal Procedure) and overturned the conviction while ordering a retrial.
Lapses in procedure
As the Hindustan Times noted: ‘’There were serious lapses in the procedure followed by the court. At every stage of the trial, the accused was denied a reasonable opportunity to defend himself. Although speedy trials are essential, it is important to note that this ‘speed’ is sometimes achieved by doling out harsher punishments through arbitrary and illegal procedures, violating the accused’s rights under Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India.’’
Unconvinced by the High Court decision, two criminal appeals were proferred before the Supreme Court i.e., one by the mother to overturn the judgment and the other by the trial court Judge wanting to quash the observations made by the High Court against the former.
Well, the trial court will have much to regret considering how harsh the Supreme Court has been in passing judgment on his judicial acumen. “Sentencing shall not be a mere lottery. It shall also not be an outcome of a knee-jerk reaction. This is a very important part of the Fundamental Rights conferred under Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India, 1950. Any unwarranted disparity would be against the very concept of a fair trial and, therefore, against justice,” the Bench comprising Justices MM Sundresh and SVN Bhatti observed.
Directive to Centre
The most positive outcome of the verdict was the court’s directive to the Central Government to frame sentencing norms. Asserting that the present system of sentencing was completely based on the predilections of the judge: “It is an important aspect which has escaped the attention of the Government of India, we recommend the Department of Justice….to consider introducing a comprehensive policy, possibly by way of getting an appropriate report from a duly constituted Sentencing Commission consisting of experts in different fields for the purpose of having a distinct sentencing policy. We request the Union of India to respond to our suggestion by way of an affidavit within a period of six months from today,” the court said.
That judgment was delivered in May this year and now comes news (Reuters) that ‘’India plans to overhaul its criminal sentencing norms to counter accusations of arbitrary punishment, sources said, following public outrage over the 2022 rape conviction of a man within 30 minutes of trial, by a judge who handed him the death penalty.’’
This reform will help reaffirm what the court observed pithily: “…The real importance lies only with the sentence, as against the conviction. Unfortunately, we do not have a clear policy or legislation when it comes to sentencing. Over the years, it has become judge-centric and there are admitted disparities in awarding a sentence.”
