Order on quantum of sentence against MSG

HPS Verma, Special PP, assisted by S.S.Yadav, DLA on behalf of the CBI and M.K. Puri, ASP, CBI.

Advertisement

S.K.Garg Narwana, Senior Advocate along-with Vishal Garg, Advocate, Rajinder Kumar, Advocate for convict Baba Gurmeet Ram Rahim Singh. 

Accused Baba Gurmeet Ram Rahim Singh is in custody.

This order is in continuation of the judgment of conviction dated

25.8.2017, for hearing arguments on the quantum of sentence.

(Order printed verbatim)

Shattered Faith

LEARNED Special Prosecutor for CBI as well as learned DLA for CBI have submitted that convict has committed sexual assault upon victims/prosecutrix who used to treat him as father and used to worship him as God and that the convict has shattered the faith and exploited both the victims physically and psychologically. Learned Special PP for CBI also submitted that both the victims were staying in the premises of Dera under the custody of the convict and the acts of convict are not less than custodial rape. That convict has projected himself as Godman and took undue advantage of his position/authority and committed rape on innocent girls and it is not ordinary case but rarest of rare case which has larger implications for the entire society and accordingly, convict deserve maximum punishment for each count for which he has been convicted. 

Deterrent messaging

It has been further submitted that convict is [a] very influential figure and must be sentenced appropriately to send a deterring message for potential offenders and also to give message to the society and in case of awarding lesser than maximum punishment, it would shock the collective conscience of the nation. 

It is also submitted that instances of rapes by the convict by taking benefit of his privileged position/authority, threatening the defenceless and hapless victims with dire consequences in the event of disclosing of crime to anyone etc. are some of the aggravating factors which must be taken into consideration while awarding punishment to the convict. 

Leniency sought

On the other hand, convict vide his separately recorded statement, has stated that he is 50 years old and is suffering from hypertension, acute diabetes and severe backache problem for more than eight years. He is into the welfare work for the society. He has already placed on record medical treatment documents vide [a] separate application today. 

His old aged mother is suffering from various old age diseases. There are many institutions like, school, college which are being run by the Trust under his motivation-and thousands of people are employed in various institutions of the Trust and prayed that lenient view be taken by considering these facts.

Learned Senior Counsel further submitted that convict is running social work in the State of Haryana, especially when Govt. of Haryana has failed to do such works. It is also submitted that convict has motivated people to marry even prostitutes and has played [a] commendable role in drug de-addiction. It is also submitted that 133 welfare works are in progress under the able guidance of convict. Further, the convict has received commendation certificates of the good deeds. It is also submitted that convict is suffering from three diseases i.e. disc problem, blood pressure and high sugar and his long incarceration would affect his health adversely. It is also submitted that convict is a law abiding citizen and sentence lesser than minimum, prescribed under unamended section 376 of IPC as existing prior to year 2013 would be applicable in the case of convict. 

Damage to country's heritage

Having due regard to the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case as well as rival contentions, this court is of the view that if acts of convict in sexually exploiting his own female disciples and intimidating them of dire consequences, is taken note of, then such kind of person do not deserve any sympathy of the court. 

The Supreme Court invariably has observed that rape is not merely physical assault; it is destructive of the whole personality of the victim.

Both the victims put the accused/convict on the pedestal of 'god' and revered him like that only. However, convict committed breach of gravest nature by sexually assaulting such gullible and blind followers. Such criminal acts of a particular individual/ convict, who is stated to be heading a religious organization known as Dera Sacha Saudha, are bound to shatter images of pious and sacred spiritual, social, cultural and religious institutions existing in this country since times immemorial, which in turn reflects irreparable damages caused by the acts of the convict to the heritage of this ancient land.

Sentencing & social goal

The Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed the punishment for any particular crime has a social goal. The fundamental purpose of imposition of sentence is based on the principle that the accused must realise that the crime committed by him has not only created a dent in the life of the victim but also a concavity in the social fabric. The purpose of just punishment is designed so that the individuals in the society which ultimately constitute the collective do not suffer time and again for such crimes. It serves as a deterrent. 

It has further been observed by the Supreme Court, on a number of occasions, that opportunity may be granted to the convict to reform himself but it is equally true that the principle of proportionality between an offence committed and the penalty imposed are to be kept in view. It has to be borne in mind that while carrying out this complex exercise, it is obligatory on the part of the court to see the impact of the offence on the society as a whole and its ramifications on the immediate collective as well as its repercussions on the victim. 

Further it has also been held that undue sympathy to impose inadequate sentence would do more harm to the justice dispensation system to undermine the public confidence in the efficacy of law. The court must not only keep in view the rights of the victim of crime but also society at large while considering the imposition of appropriate punishment. 

Obligation to society

Further, the Supreme Court has ruled that it is the duty of the court to impose adequate sentence, for one of the purposes of imposition of requisite sentence is protection of the society and a legitimate response to the collective conscience. In a way it is an obligation to the society which has reposed faith in the court of law to curtail evil. While imposing the sentence it is the court's accountability to remind itself about its role and the reverence for the rule of law. It must evince the rationalised judicial discretion and not an individual perception or moral propensity. It has also been observed by Supreme Court that the old saying "the law can hunt one's past" cannot be allowed to be buried in an indecent manner and the rainbow of mercy, for no fathomable reason, should be allowed to rule. The conception of mercy has its own space but it cannot occupy the whole accommodation. Further it has also been observed that though punishment is designed to protect society by deterring potential offenders as also by preventing the guilty party from repeating the offence; it is also designed to reform the offender and reclaim him as a law abiding citizen for the good of the society. Reformatory, deterrent the punitive aspects of punishment thus play their due part in judicial thinking while determining the question of awarding appropriate sentence. Reliance in this regard may be placed on B.G.Goswami Vs Delhi Administration 1974 (3) SCC 85.

Compensating the crime

The Supreme Court has held that it is mandatory duty of the Court to consider the question of award of compensation to victim of crime. However, it is discretion of court to award or not to award compensation. It has further been held that section 357 CrPC confers a duty on the Court to apply its mind to the question of compensation in every criminal case and court must disclose that it has applied its mind to this question. Disclosure of application of mind is best demonstrated by recording reasons in support of the order or conclusion. This power is not ancillary to other sentences but in addition thereto.

Further, the Supreme Court has held that it is the duty of the Court to take into account the nature of the crime, the injuries suffered, the justness of the claim for compensation, the capacity of the accused to pay and other relevant circumstances in fixing the amount of fine or compensation. The Supreme Court has held that Section 357 (3) CrPC. does not impose any limitation on power of court to award compensation but such jurisdiction cannot be exercised at the whims and caprice of a Judge. 

The capacity of accused to pay must also be judged. 

Now coming to facts of the case, convict Baba Gurmeet Ram Rahim singh is stated to be head of Dera Sacha Sauda, Sirsa which runs a number of institutions. More than 7-8 thousand people are working in the institution of the convict. It is also a matter of record that during the course of trial, convict moved several applications seeking permission to visit abroad for promoting films directed and produced by him because millions of rupees were spent/invested in producing such films. All these facts clearly establish that convict has no dearth of wealth and is a man possessing huge pelf and has enough financial resources to compensation the victims of his criminal acts.

Two sentences 

Keeping in view the entirety of the facts as well as the principles of law discussed here-in-above, convict Baba Gurmeet Ram Rahim Singh is directed to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 10 years and also to pay fine of Rs.15 lakhs for committing offence under Section 376 IPC qua prosecutrix-A and in case of default for not making the payment of fine, he shall further undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years. Further, convict is also directed to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 2 years and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- for committing offence under Section 506 IPC qua prosecutrix-A and in default of payment of fine, convict shall further undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months. It is further directed that out of fine of Rs. 15 lakhs , Rs 14 lakhs  shall be paid to prosecutrix-A/victim as compensation so as to facilitate her rehabilitation. Both the above sentences awarded shall run concurrently.

Further, convict Baba Gurmeet Ram Rahim Singh is directed to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 10 years and also to pay fine of Rs.15 lakhs for committing offence under Section 376 IPC to prosecutrix-B and in case of default for not making the payment of fine, he shall further undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years. 

Further, the convict is also directed to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000 for committing offence under Section 506 1PC qua prosecutrix-B and in default undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months. It is further directed that out of fine of Rs. 15 lakhs, Rs. 14 lakhs shall be paid to prosecutrix-B compensation so as to facilitate her rehabilitation.

It is further directed that the sentences shall run consecutively. The period of custody already undergone by the convict shall be set off against the substantive sentences.

No mercy to ‘Wild Beast’

This court is of the considered view that when the convict did not even spare his own pious disciples and had acted like wild beast, he does not deserve any mercy. In other words, a man who has no concern for humanity, nor has any mercy in his nature, do not deserve leniency from the court. Convict Baba Gurmeet Ram Rahim Singh has been held guilty for committing rape upon prosecutrix-A punishable under Section 376 IPC as well as criminally intimidating said prosecutrix punishable under Section 506 IPC. Further, the convict has also been held guilty and convicted for committing rape upon another prosecutrix-B and also found 'guilty for criminally intimidating the said prosecutrix, thereby committing offences punishable under Section 376 IPC and Section 506 IPC.

Announced in open Court

Dated: 28.08.2017

Jagdeep Singh

Special Judge (CBI)

Makeshift Court in District Jail

Rohtak at Sunaria, Haryana