In a landmark ruling, the Supreme Court of India has made a decisive pronouncement on a case involving a conviction under Section 376(2)(g) IPC. The judgment carries weight in the legal arena and sets a precedent for future cases. Explore the details of this pivotal decision and its ramifications in criminal law.
Facts
- The appellants were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of ten years under Section 120B IPC.
- They were also convicted under Section 376(2)(g) IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 15 years.
- The High Court affirmed the conviction and sentences imposed on the appellants.
- The appeals were filed by the appellants against the conviction and sentences.
- The Supreme Court declined to interfere with the conviction but limited the notice to the quantum of sentence.
- Arguments were heard from the appellants’ counsel and the counsel for the State of Manipur.
- The appellants’ conviction under Section 120B IPC and 376(2)(g) IPC were not interfered with.
- Two appellants, close friends, charged under Section 376 and Section 120-B IPC for raping the victim.
- Victim found herself raped by both accused no. 1 and accused no. 2 when she regained consciousness.
- Mother of the victim lodged a complaint the next day, leading to FIR registration under Sections 376 IPC and 120-B IPC.
- Appellants convicted under Section 120B IPC and Section 376(2)(g) IPC based on oral, medical, and other evidence.
- Accused no. 1 picked up the victim, along with accused no. 2, in a Maruti Car and took her to a restaurant on 20.10.2012.
- Appellants allegedly drugged the victim with a soft drink mixed with intoxicant, leading her to fall unconscious before committing rape.
Also Read: High Court’s Decision on Large Gala Allotment Dispute: Supreme Court Verdict
Arguments
- Learned senior counsel representing the appellant(s) argued that charges were not framed for the gang rape under Section 376(2)(g) IPC.
- The appellant(s) were convicted under Section 376(2)(g) IPC without the charges being framed for the same grievous offence.
- It was contended that the Court should not have convicted under Section 376(2)(g) IPC without framing the charges for the same.
- The argument emphasized the need for considering the quantum of sentence in light of this aspect.
Also Read: High Court Acquittal Case of State of Uttar Pradesh v. Jai Prakash
Analysis
- The Court cites Section 376(2)(g) IPC and discusses the minimum sentence of seven years for rape, which can extend to life imprisonment.
- The Court acknowledges that no serious prejudice is caused to the appellants by their conviction under Section 376(2)(g) IPC, considering the evidence presented by the prosecution and victim (PW-5).
- The Court mentions that even though no charge was specifically framed under Section 376(2)(g) IPC, the conviction of the appellants under this section is valid based on the evidence presented.
- Discusses the discretion provided to the Court prior to the amendment by Act 13 of 2013, allowing for a sentence of less than ten years with special reasons mentioned in the judgment.
- Examines the concept of ‘adequate and special reasons’ for reducing a sentence, emphasizing that no fixed criteria can determine this, and it depends on various factors.
- Points out that after the amendment, there is no discretion for the Court to reduce the sentence for the offence of rape.
- Details the circumstances of the appellants at the time of the offence, noting that one was a police driver and the other a singer with a good reputation, both being around 24-25 years old.
- Explanation 1 to Section 376 states that if a woman is raped by a group of persons acting with a common intention, each person will be guilty of gang rape.
- Prior to Amendment Act 13 of 2013, Section 376(2)(g) provided for rigorous imprisonment of not less than ten years, which could extend to life imprisonment, along with a fine.
- The punishment under Section 376(2)(g) given by a Court of Competent Jurisdiction prior to the Amendment Act 13 of 2013 shall not be deemed invalid.
- Appellants have no criminal antecedents and come from a backward area.
- Certificates from Jail Authorities show the appellants’ good conduct post-conviction.
- Appellants have participated in sports, garden activities, and other programs in jail.
- Considering the above factors, the sentences are reduced to eight years for Section 376(2)(g) IPC and ten years for Section 120B IPC.
Also Read: Judgment Review: Supreme Court’s Ruling on the Capital Punishment Appeal
Decision
- The sentence of imprisonment for each appellant is reduced to eight years.
- As directed by both the Trial Court and the High Court, the sentences are to run concurrently.
- The appeals are partly allowed with the amended sentence.
Case Title: THONGAM TARUN SINGH Vs. THE STATE OF MANIPUR
Case Number: Crl.A. No.-000805-000805 / 2019
