The division bench of Justice A.S. Supehia and Justice M.R. Mengdey of the Gujarat High Court in the case of Faruk Said Lambat vs State of Gujarat held that cogent reasons are required to be given for imposing stringent and strict sentences.
Brief Facts:
The factual matrix of the case is that the prosecutrix was going for tuition on her two-wheeler. Thereafter, two accused came from opposite directions on their motorcycle and one of the accused kicked the vehicle on which the prosecutrix was riding. Furthermore, she was dragged into the bushes, and rape was committed by both accused one by one. Then, the FIR was lodged by the prosecutrix, and the charges were framed for the offence punishable under Section 376(2)(g) read with Section 114 of the IPC.
The session court convicted both the accused for the offence punishable under Section 376(2)(g) read with Section 114 of the Indian Penal Code. The accused- Munaf was sentenced to undergo imprisonment for 10 years and the appellant is sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life.
Contentions of the Appellant:
The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant contended that the test identification parade which was conducted to identify the accused was not conducted in a legal manner. Furthermore, it was contended that in light of the provision of Section 26 of the Evidence Act, the appellant's background provided before the doctor is not admissible in evidence. Also, on the same set of facts one accused- Munaf was convicted of imprisonment for 10 years and the appellant was convicted of imprisonment for life. There exist no special circumstances which would warrant the imposition of more stringent punishment upon the appellant.
Contentions of the State:
The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the state contended that the prosecutrix clearly narrated the whole incident and the same is also supported by material available on record. It was furthermore contended that the session court was right in convicting the present appellant and imposing the sentence of life imprisonment.
Observations of the Court:
The Hon’ble Court observed that the prosecutrix's deposition becomes significant because this is a case involving an offence covered by Section 376(2)(g) of the IPC. Furthermore, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant has failed to explain how the conduct of the test identification parade was not conducted properly.
It was also observed that the medical evidence supported the incident as there were external injuries on the body of the prosecutrix and the hymen was also broken.
It was noted that the session court on the same set of facts imposed different punishments and the reasoning for the same was provided that the act was premeditated and there was no improvement in the conduct of the appellant. However, the Hon’ble Court ruled out both the aspects given by the session court.
It was furthermore noted that for the purpose of imposing severe and rigorous imprisonment, compelling reasons must be provided. The Sessions Court's explanations for why it sentenced the appellant to life imprisonment do not give rise to any confidence especially considering that Munaf, the co-accused was given a 10-year imprisonment based on the same set of facts used against the current appellant.
Based on these considerations, the Hon’ble Court was of the view that the appellant has already undergone a sentence of more than 12 years and 5 months and it is sufficient. Therefore, the appellant was released.
The decision of the court:
With the above direction, the Hon’ble Court partly allowed the present appeal.
Case Title: Faruk Said Lambat vs State of Gujarat
Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice A.S. Supehia and Hon’ble Mr. Justice M.R. Mengdey
Case No.: R/Criminal Appeal No. 1027 of 2014
Advocate for the Appellant: Mr. P. P. MAJMUDAR
Advocate for the Respondent: Ms. Vrunda Shah, APP
Read Judgment @Latestlaws.com
Picture Source :
