Delhi High Court
Ram Tej vs State on 24 May, 2023
N.C.2023:DHC:3657-DB
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Decided on: 24th May, 2023
+ CRL.A. 264/2019
RAM TEJ ..... Appellant
Represented by: Mr. B. Badrinath, Advocate
(DHCLSC) with Mr. Rajesh
Raj, Advocate.
versus
STATE ..... Respondent
Represented by: Mr.Prithu Garg, APP for the
State with Insp. Mahender
Singh & SI Ranbir, P.S. Vasant
Kunj (South).
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MUKTA GUPTA
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE POONAM A. BAMBA
MUKTA GUPTA, J. (ORAL)
1. Vide judgment pronounced on 18th May, 2023, this Court had upheld
the impugned judgment of the Trial Court dated 02nd May, 2018 convicting
the appellant. Notice was also issued to the appellant as to why his sentence
be not modified to a fixed term in terms of the judgment of Hon'ble
Supreme Court reported as (2016) 7 SCC 1 Union of India vs. V.Sriharan.
Superintendent, Tihar Jail was also directed to produce the appellant before
this Court. The appellant was explained the notice. Learned counsel for the
appellant took some time to address arguments.
2. Learned counsel for the appellant contends that the appellant is the
sole bread earner of the family. He has two sons aged 10 years and 11
years. Since his parents have died, the two children who are minor are
residing with their maternal grand-parents. On instructions he further states
Signature Not Verified
KUMAR BHATT
Signing Date:25.05.2023
13:04:25
N.C.2023:DHC:3657-DB
that the wife of the appellant is mentally challenged. The appellant has
undergone nearly 8 years of imprisonment and is presently 38 years of age.
3. Heard the counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant and learned
APP appearing for the State.
4. Constitution Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in V. Sriharan
(supra), held:
"Question 52.1 : Whether imprisonment for life in terms
of Section 53 read with Section 45 of the Penal Code
meant imprisonment for rest of the life of the prisoner or
a convict undergoing life imprisonment has a right to
claim remission and whether as per the principles
enunciated in paras 91 to 93 of Swamy Shraddananda
(2) [Swamy Shraddananda (2) v. State of Karnataka,
(2008) 13 SCC 767] , a special category of sentence
may be made for the very few cases where the death
penalty might be substituted by the punishment of
imprisonment for life or imprisonment for a term in
excess of fourteen years and to put that category beyond
application of remission?
Answer
177. Imprisonment for life in terms of Section 53 read
with Section 45 of the Penal Code only means
imprisonment for the rest of the life of the convict. The
right to claim remission, commutation, reprieve, etc. as
provided under Article 72 or Article 161 of the
Constitution will always be available being
constitutional remedies untouchable by the Court.
178. We hold that the ratio laid down in Swamy
Shraddananda (2) [Swamy Shraddananda (2) v. State of
Karnataka, (2008) 13 SCC 767] that a special category
of sentence; instead of death can be substituted by the
punishment of imprisonment for life or for a term
exceeding 14 years and put that category beyond
Signature Not Verified
KUMAR BHATT
Signing Date:25.05.2023
13:04:25
N.C.2023:DHC:3657-DB
application of remission is well founded and we answer
the said question in the affirmative".
5. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the decision reported as (2017) 6 SCC 1
Mukesh v. State (NCT of Delhi) observed:
"516. Society's reasonable expectation is that deterrent
punishment commensurate with the gravity of the
offence be awarded. When the crime is brutal, shocking
the collective conscience of the community, sympathy in
any form would be misplaced and it would shake the
confidence of public in the administration of criminal-
justice system. As held in Om Prakash v. State of
Haryana [Om Prakash v. State of Haryana, (1999) 3
SCC 19 : 1999 SCC (Cri) 334] , the Court must respond
to the cry of the society and to settle what would be a
deterrent punishment for what was an apparently
abominable crime".
6. The mitigating circumstances as addressed by learned counsel for the
appellant are the age of the appellant being 38 years at the moment, having
undergone 8 years of imprisonment and that he has two minor children and
a wife to look after and there is no other person in the family to look after
three of them. At the same time, the diabolic and depraved manner in which
the appellant took the victim to a solitary place and not only sexually
assaulted her but inserted broken sticks in her vaginal and anal cavities and
thereafter committed the murder by strangulation, deserves imprisonment
for a fixed term beyond remission as provided in V. Sriharan (supra).
7. Dealing with a similar case of rape with murder, considering the
gravity and depravity of the crime, this Court in 2022:DHC:3386-DB
Sikander Soni & Anr. v. State, sentenced the appellant therein to a fixed
term of 20 years without remission.
Signature Not Verified
KUMAR BHATT
Signing Date:25.05.2023
13:04:25
N.C.2023:DHC:3657-DB
8. Considering the mitigating and extenuating circumstances, this Court
finds that a sentence of imprisonment for a period of 20 years without
remission would serve the purpose. Consequently, the sentence awarded to
the appellant by the learned Trial Court is modified to rigorous
imprisonment for a period of 20 years without remission. The appellant
shall deposit a fine of ₹50,000/- each for offences punishable under Sections
376A IPC and 302 IPC and ₹10,000/- for offence punishable under Section
404 IPC and in default whereof to undergo simple imprisonment for six
months each for offences punishable under Section 376A IPC and 302 IPC
and one month for offence punishable under Section 404 IPC. This amount
if deposited shall be released as compensation in favour of the legal heirs of
the deceased.
9. Copy of the order be uploaded on the website of this Court and be
also sent to the Superintendent Tihar Jail for intimation to the appellant and
updation of records.
(MUKTA GUPTA)
JUDGE
(POONAM A. BAMBA)
JUDGE
MAY 24, 2023
'ga'
Signature Not Verified
KUMAR BHATT
Signing Date:25.05.2023
13:04:25
