The Supreme Court has reduced the sentence of a man convicted in a gang rape case from imprisonment for life till the remainder of his natural life to the statutory minimum of 20 years, while observing that crimes against women continue unabated despite social and legal progress.
A Bench of Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Augustine George Masih lamented that although society has evolved both sociologically and psychologically to move away from patriarchal mindsets, such offences continue to occur with alarming frequency. The Court said that despite successive amendments to criminal law aimed at strengthening protections for women, the fight against such crimes must continue until they become a thing of the past and are met with universal societal condemnation.
The appeal was filed by Ehsaan against a November 1, 2017 judgment of the Delhi High Court affirming his conviction and sentence under Section 376D of the Indian Penal Code (now corresponding to Section 70 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita). The conviction and sentence had originally been imposed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi, on June 7 and 9, 2017.
The appellant had been sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for life for the remainder of his natural life and fined Rs 25,000, payable to the survivor.
According to the prosecution, the survivor hired a rickshaw from Delhi Railway Station late on the night of September 7, 2016, after the driver assured her that he would take her home. Instead, he allegedly took her to a secluded spot where another man was waiting, and the two gang raped her. An FIR was subsequently registered at IP Estate Police Station.
The Supreme Court had limited the scope of the appeal to the question of sentence.
While describing the offence as “without any manner of doubt, grave”, the Bench examined whether the punishment imposed met the test of proportionality. It reiterated that sentencing serves a threefold purpose, punitive, deterrent and protective, and must strike a balance between the interests of the victim, society and the accused.
Whenever a court hands down a sentence, it aims to achieve three goals: punish the wrongdoer, deter future crimes, and protect the public. Applying a punishment proportional to the offense helps maintain a balanced consideration of the victim, the defendant, and the community
The Bench stressed that sentencing should be based on a holistic assessment of the facts of each case. It noted that the appellant had no prior criminal record, was 25 years old at the time of the offence, and his age suggested the possibility of reformation. The Court also recorded that the State had not placed any material to indicate that he was beyond reform. Further, his claim of maintaining good conduct during nearly ten years of incarceration, including remission, remained undisputed.
Referring to Section 376D IPC, introduced through the Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, 2013 following the Nirbhaya case, the Bench observed that Parliament had deliberately prescribed a minimum punishment of 20 years’ imprisonment and a maximum sentence extending to the remainder of the convict’s natural life, reflecting the gravity of the offence.
Recognizing the gravity of the crime, the Legislature created a standalone offense with a statutory minimum penalty. Upon a finding of guilt, the court is legally bound to impose no less than the minimum prescribed punishment.
The Court also noted that Parliament had consciously removed the earlier judicial discretion to award a sentence below the statutory minimum for “adequate and special reasons”, signalling its intent to deal strictly with gang rape offences.
Partly allowing the appeal, the Supreme Court modified the sentence from imprisonment for the remainder of the appellant’s natural life to rigorous imprisonment for 20 years, with the benefit of remission, if otherwise admissible.
The post Supreme Court cuts gang rape convict’s life-long sentence to statutory minimum of 20 years appeared first on India Legal.