New Delhi: The Supreme Court has reduced the life sentence of a man convicted of gang rape in 2017 by a trial court that held he was only a 25-year-old when the offence was committed, and given his young age, there was a possibility of reformation.
A two-judge bench of Justices Sanjay Karol and Augustine George Masih on Monday allowed the convict’s appeal for remission, saying: “We deem it appropriate to modify the sentence to 20 years with benefit of remission, if any. The appeal is partly allowed.” Remission refers to the shortening or mitigation of a convict’s sentence.
The case revolved around a man called Ehsaan, convicted by a Tis Hazari court in June 2017 for the gang rape of a woman. The woman had boarded a rickshaw from Delhi Railway Station, but was taken to a deserted place, where another co-accused was already present. The two had then raped her. In September 2016, a First Information Report (FIR) was registered against Ehsaan and his co-accused Umesh Giri.
In the present case, however, the two-judge bench noted that Ehsaan had no criminal antecedents, and was only 25 years of age when the crime was committed. The bench also added that Ehsaan had maintained good conduct since his conviction, and the state government had not challenged or opposed his request for remission in any way.
Why sentence was shortened
The convict’s sentence was reduced owing to his good conduct, young age and the overall possibility of reformation in his case.
“Given the young age there is a possibility of reformation. The State has neither brought on record anything to show that the same would not be possible, nor has it contravened the statement made on behalf of the appellant that in the nearly 10 years (including remission) that he has been convicted, he has maintained a good conduct,” the court noted.
The court acknowledged the heinous nature of the offence, but said the offence was against society at large, and not against the victim alone. “Despite much evolution, sociologically and psychologically, to break away from the chains of patriarchal thought, incidents such as these are only continuing unabashedly,” the court said while adding that various amendments, like the 2013 amendment, have been brought about, but such offences continue.
The urgency to root out such offences cannot be simmered down even for a bit till these incidents are recorded only in history and are viewed with collective disdain, the court said while referring to the statistics on rape, gang rape and attempted rape put out by the National Crime Records Bureau (NCRB) for the years 2021-2024.
Importantly, the court noted that offence of gang rape, under Section 376D IPC was substituted by way of the Criminal Law (Amendment) Act 2013, and it was made clear that the minimum sentence for the same was 20 years while the maximum was life imprisonment for remainder of natural life. The 2013 amendment had made sure that the heinous offence of gang rape was made a separate or independent punishable offence under Section 376D, and that it carries a minimum punishment of 20 years at least, the court noted, adding that there could not be any other alternative to the minimum possible punishment in his case.
“The court, therefore, has no other alternative and must, upon convicting, impose at least the minimum sentence. The judicial discretion in reducing the same by recording ‘adequate and special reasons’ which was given in proviso to the unamended Section 376 has been taken away. This indicates legislative recognition of the seriousness of the offence which the courts must abide by,” the court said in its 20 July judgment.
Also Read: 25 yrs after verdict, school record curtails sentence for rape convict—HC rules he was juvenile
What do courts look at in cases of remission?
Referring to the doctrine of proportionality, which says that actions and restrictions on individual rights should not be excessive, arbitrary, or more severe than necessary, the court said the imposition of death penalty should pass the test of reason, and be in line with Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution which relate to the right to equality, freedom and life.
When a sentence is imposed on an offender, it is done so with trifold purpose, the court said while adding that the three elements of such punishment should be that it is “punitive, deterrent and protective”. In a nutshell, the sentence must be proportional to the offence, the court said.
Emphasising the need to strike a judicious balance between the interest of the victim, society and the accused, after following the due process of law, the court said that certain factors must be looked at by courts when deciding whether to allow a convict’s plea for remission or not.
Recalling the 2024 Supreme Court ruling in Navas vs State of Kerala, the court said that courts must look at factors such as the nature and gravity of the crime, interests of society, deterrent purpose of the punishment, motive behind the crime, conduct of the accused, the number of victims, past criminal behaviour of the accused, and whether the crime was premeditated or not.
State’s power of remission
Under Section 432 (1) CrPC, the relevant government has the power to remit the entire punishment or a part of it. This remission can be granted either unconditionally or with specific conditions. However, the actual remission takes effect only after the convict agrees to these conditions.
Before deciding the matter, the court clarified that there was no doubt that the appropriate government had the power to grant remission, provided the conditions were met.
It cited a ruling by a five-judge bench of the Supreme Court in the case of Union of India vs V. Sriharan alias Murugan (2016), which upheld an earlier view by the top court in the case of Mohinder Singh vs. State of Punjab (2013) to say that, “the decision to grant remission has to be well informed, reasonable and fair to all concerned”.
(Edited by Nardeep Singh Dahiya)
Also Read: A death sentence in 60 days: Pune rape-murder case sparks debate on fast-track trials