Section 293 of IPC:
Section 293 of IPC provides that if any accused has sold or let to hire or distribute or exhibit or circulate any object to a person below the age of 20 years, then the offence would be constituted.
The prosecution proved A1 and A2 sold obscene photographs abroad and received money i.e. first element of Section 293. But for second element i.e. age of buyer shall be under 20 years, no evidence was presented to prove the age of buyers under 20 years. Hence Without proof of the buyer’s age, the prosecution failed to meet the legal threshold for Section 293. Thus, A1 and A2 were acquitted under this section. Role of A3 and A4 was also not proved as per requirement of section 293 of IPC, hence court dismissed charges against A4 due to insufficient evidence. Although bank account was opened in the name of A3, but money was withdrawn from the bank account by A1 and A2 and A2 forged the sign of A3.
Sentence by High Court:
- Sentence of A1: Sentence of A1 u/s 377 was confirmed as he was proved guilty of offence under that provision. The Sessions Judge’s order recording guilt of A1 under Section 292 of the IPC is confirmed, and the imposed sentence stands upheld. Sentence of A1 u/s 293 of IPC is quashed and set aside in lack of evidence. Thus A1 has now punishment of RI of 10 years and fine of ₹ 5,000/- u/s 377 of IPC as well as RI of 1 year and fine of ₹ 1,000/- u/s 292 of IPC. Thus he have to pay total fine of ₹ 6,000/- (Six thousand only). Although total period of RI is sum of 11 years, due to concurrent sentencing of imprisonment finally he has to serve only for 10 years of RI.
- Sentence of A2: The Sessions Judge sentenced A2 to 5 years’ RI and ₹ 2,000 fine or 6 more months’ R.I. if fine not paid. However, A2 already served 3 years, 7 months, 23 days and is entitled to 1 year, 17 days’ remission. The court ruled this time, combined with remission, is sufficient to meet justice’s ends, avoiding further separation from her children as her children depend on her. The conviction and sentence for A2 under Section 292 of the IPC are also confirmed by the court. Sentence of A2 u/s 293 of IPC is quashed and set aside in lack of evidence. Her imprisonment was deemed to be served and she has to pay fine of ₹ 3,000/- (Three thousand only)
- Sentence of A3: The Sessions Judge’s conviction of A3 under Section 377 of the IPC is overturned, leading to acquittal and setting aside of the sentence due to unsustainable guilt as per the court’s observations. The guilt of A3 recorded under Section 292 of the IPC is set aside, leading to acquittal and cancellation of all associated sentence and fine. Sentence of A3 u/s 293 of IPC is quashed and set aside in lack of evidence. Thus A3 was not liable to pay any punishment fine.
- Sentence of A4: Sentence of A4 u/s 377 was confirmed as he was proved guilty of offence under that provision. Like A1 and A2, the Sessions Judge’s decision to convict and sentence A4 under Section 292 of the IPC is upheld. Sentence of A4 u/s 293 of IPC is quashed and set aside in lack of evidence. Thus A1 has now punishment of RI of 10 years and fine of ₹ 5,000/- u/s 377 of IPC as well as RI of 1 year and fine of ₹ 1,000/- u/s 292 of IPC. Thus he have to pay total fine of ₹ 6,000/- (Six thousand only). Although total period of RI is sum of 11 years, due to concurrent sentencing of imprisonment finally he has to serve only for 10 years of RI.
Conclusion and Suggestions:
In order of Sessions Judge, fine amount was also low, as it was not able to recover the infrastructural expenses required for investigation and trial. Imprisonment is not at all punishment now, as it provides free shelter, clothes, food to culprits. It is necessary to increase punishment in form of fines and to decrease imprisonment. Fines shall be calculated in such a way that shall make culprits bankrupt.
A2 was married and mother of children. Before sexually exploiting child of other person, who was minor, she must have thought of the fate of her own children. But due to nominal punishments in statute books, no one is having fear before breaking any law. Law shall be framed in such a way that any one before braking any law shall think twice about consequences. Ancient Bharatiya times were better than today’s technically advanced time, because any crime was defined as “Paap” in religious scriptures associated with heavy punishments in next life and in fear people were abstained by doing such heinous acts. Although it is claimed superstitious in today’s view, but it was working and everyone was living in conscience.
In whole episode victims suffered as they have gone through sexual exploitation at tender age. Children of A2 suffered, as she was in jail and no one was there to care for her children. Children of A2 or victims of this whole episode didn’t broke any rule but they were punished, firstly children as there was no one to care them and secondly victims who got delayed justice of their exploitation.
Do you think than these punishments were sufficient for the heinous crimes done against minors? Comment your opinion and start a discussion.
Share this article. Add this site to bookmarks. Visit daily to boost your legal knoledge.