Supreme Court Reduces Sentence Imposed On Rape Convict

The Supreme Courtroom noticed that the severity of sentence just isn’t the one determinant for doing justice to the victims.

In figuring out the quantum of sentence, the Courtroom should keep in mind the circumstances pertaining to the offence and all different related circumstances together with the age of the offender, the bench comprising Justices DY Chandrachud and Surya Kant stated.

On this case, the appellant was convicted below Part 376 and sentenced to life imprisonment and a superb of Rs 5000. He was additionally convicted below (ii) Part 363 – 5 years’ rigorous imprisonment with a superb of Rs 5000; (iii) Part 366 – 10 years’ rigorous imprisonment with a superb of Rs 5000; (iv) Part 307 – 10 years’ rigorous imprisonment with a superb of Rs 5000; and (v) Part 354 – 2 years’ rigorous imprisonment.

Earlier than the Apex Courtroom, it was contended that the appellant was twenty years previous on the date of offence and has now undergone 11 years of imprisonment. Therefore, it was requested that the quantum of sentence which has been imposed must be suitably modified to such an extent because the Courtroom deems applicable having regard to the necessity for reformation of the appellant. The State opposed this plea contending that because the sufferer was assaulted on the pinnacle after the alleged act, the sentence of life imprisonment ought to meet the ends of justice.

On this regard, the court docket referred to Justice Krishna Iyer’s judgment in Dharambir v. State of Uttar Pradesh (1979) 3 SCC 645 which famous the affect of longer jail sentences on convicts who’re younger. Additionally referring to observations made within the judgment in Maru Ram v. Union of India (1981) 1 SCC 107, the court docket stated:

In our view, the ends of justice could be met by directing that as a substitute and instead of the sentence of life imprisonment which has been imposed for the conviction below Part 376, the appellant shall stand sentenced to a time period of 15 years’ imprisonment. We’re not inclined to uphold the argument of the respondent-state that solely the sentence of life imprisonment would meet the ends of justice. The ideas of restorative justice discover place inside the Indian Structure and severity of sentence just isn’t the one determinant for doing justice to the victims.

In Maru Ram, Justice Krishna Iyer had noticed thus:

We’re afraid there’s a confusion about fundamentals in mixing up victimology with penology to warrant retributive severity by the back-door. If crime claims a sufferer criminology should embrace victimology as a significant element of its considerations. Certainly, when a homicide or different grievous offence is dedicated the dependants or different aggrieved individuals should obtain reparation and the social duty of the legal to revive the loss or heal the damage is a part of the punitive train. However the size of the jail time period isn’t any reparation to the crippled or bereaved and is futility compounded with cruelty. “Can storied urn or animated bust name to its mansion the fleeting breath?” Equally emphatically, given perspicacity and freedom from sadism, can flogging the killer or burning his limbs or torturing his psychic being carry balm to the soul of the lifeless by any technique of thanatology or make good the horrible loss attributable to the murder? Victimology, a burgeoning department of humane legal justice, should discover fulfilment, not by means of barbarity however by obligatory recoupment by the wrongdoer of the injury inflicted, not by giving extra ache to the offender however by lessening the lack of the forlorn.

Headnotes

Legal Trial – Sentencing – In figuring out the quantum of sentence, the Courtroom should keep in mind the circumstances pertaining to the offence and all different related circumstances together with the age of the offender – The ideas of restorative justice discover place inside the Indian Structure and severity of sentence just isn’t the one determinant for doing justice to the victims. [Referred to Dharambir v. State of Uttar Pradesh (1979) 3 SCC 645, Maru Ram v. Union of India (1981) 1 SCC 107 ] (Para 7,8)

Abstract: Appellant convicted below Part 376,363,366, 307, 354 and sentenced to life imprisonment sought modification of sentence- Sentenced to a time period of 15 years’ imprisonment – Appellant has undergone precise imprisonment for a interval of 11 years as on date – The ends of justice could be met by directing that as a substitute and instead of the sentence of life imprisonment which has been imposed for the conviction below Part 376, the appellant shall stand sentenced to a time period of 15 years’ imprisonment.

Case particulars

Vipul Rasikbhai Koli Jankher | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 288 | Crl.A.407/2022 | 11 March 2022

Coram: Justices DY Chandrachud and Surya Kant

Counsel: Adv Harinder Mohan Singh for appellant, Adv Archana Pathak Dave for respondent – State