[Cites 23, Cited by 0]

Delhi High Court

State ( Nct Of Delhi) vs Sweety on 25 March, 2026

                          *      IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
                          %                      Order on sentence reserved on: 19.03.2026
                                              Order on sentence pronounced on: 25.03.2026

                          +      CRL.A. 1078/2018
                                 STATE (NCT OF DELHI)                          .....Appellant
                                                 Through:    Mr. Utkarsh, APP for State

                                                 Versus
                                 SWEETY                                        .....Respondent
                                                 Through:    Mr. Deepak Jakhar, Advocate
                                                             alongwith respondent in person.

                          CORAM:
                          HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE CHANDRASEKHARAN SUDHA
                                             ORDER ON SENTENCE

                          CHANDRASEKHARAN SUDHA, J.

1. Heard the respondent/convict on the question of sentence

under Section 235(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973

(Cr.P.C.).

2. Initially the learned counsel for the respondent/convict

started arguing on the merits of this appeal including the principles

governing the scope of interference by the High Court in an appeal

filed by the State challenging the acquittal recorded by the trial

court. Reference was also made to the dictum in Babu

Sahebagouda Rudragoudar & Ors. v. State of Karnataka, 2024

INSC 320 in support of the same. This Court reminded the

learned counsel several times that the said aspects had already

been considered and requested him to confine his arguments to the

question of sentence. It was only after repeated reminders, the

learned counsel made the following submissions regarding the

sentence to be imposed.

3. It was submitted by the learned counsel for the

respondent/convict that the latter had faced trial for quite a long

period and was in custody for about nine months in the case. He

further submitted that the respondent/convict has a child aged

about 05 years and that there is no one at home to look after the

child as her brother (the CCL in this case) is also presently in jail.

Therefore, it was prayed that a lenient view be taken while

awarding the sentence.

4. Per Contra, it was submitted by the learned Additional

Public Prosecutor that the offences under which the convict has

been found guilty are grave and heinous in nature, particularly the

offence under Section 109 IPC read with 376 IPC. The offence

was committed on 31.08.2013. The provisions of Section 376 IPC

were amended by the Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, 2013,

which came into force on 03.02.2013. Since the present offence

was committed after the enforcement of the said amendment, the

amended provisions of Section 376 IPC apply to the case on hand.

It was also brought to the notice of this Court that the

respondent/convict is also involved in other criminal cases.

Notably, in FIR No. 279/2013, registered at Najafgarh police

station, she is alleged to have committed offences punishable

under Sections 376, 323, 506 and 120-B IPC. Further, in FIR No.

217/2025, registered under Sections 313(3), 318, 351 and 3(5) of

the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS) at Najafgarh police

station, the convict is presently shown as a "wanted" accused.

Additionally, in FIR No. 57/2026, registered under Sections

103(1), 61 and 3(5) BNS at Jhajjar police station, the convict is

stated to be in judicial custody. These factors constitute

aggravating circumstances and warrant the imposition of stringent

punishment.

4.1. While placing reliance on the dictums in State of M.P.

v. Vikram Das, (2019) 4 SCC 125, Central Bureau of

Investigation vs. Md. Yaseen Wani & Ors. 2025:DHC:1293 and

Parameshwari v. State of T.N., 2026 SCC OnLine SC 209, it

was also submitted that where a statute prescribes a minimum

sentence, courts cannot impose a lesser sentence under any

circumstance.

5. This Court has considered the submissions made on behalf

of both sides and has carefully examined the nature and gravity of

the offences, the manner in which they were committed, and the

overall facts and circumstances of the case.

6. The offence in the present case was committed on

31.08.2013. Under Section 376 IPC as it stood then, the

punishment prescribed is rigorous imprisonment for a term not less

than 7 years, which may extend to life and shall also be liable to

fine. Under Section 366 IPC, the offence is punishable with

imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to

ten years along with fine; under Section 506 (Part II) IPC, the

offence is punishable with imprisonment which may extend to

seven years, or with fine, or with both and under Section 323 IPC,

the offence is punishable with imprisonment which may extend to

one year, or with fine which may extend to ₹1000, or with both.

7. In Vikram Das (supra), the trial court convicted the

respondent for offence under Section 3(1)(xi) of the SC and ST

Act and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six

months with fine of ₹500. The High Court reduced the sentence of

the respondent to the sentence already undergone of eleven days,

but enhancing the fine from ₹500 to ₹3000. The Apex Court,

reversing the judgment of High Court, held that where a minimum

sentence is provided for, the court cannot impose less than the

minimum sentence. Even the provisions under Article 142 of the

Constitution cannot be resorted to impose a sentence less than the

minimum sentence. The principle that minimum sentencing

provisions must be strictly followed and even mitigating factors

such as long trial, age, or guilty plea cannot override the statutory

mandate, was reiterated in Yaseen Wani (supra).

8. In Parameshwari (supra), the respondents were tried and

convicted by the trial court for offences under Sections 307, 326

and 324 IPC and were sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for

three years along with fine. The conviction and sentence were

affirmed by the appellate court. However, in revision, the High

Court upheld the conviction, but reduced the sentence to the period

already undergone (about two months) and enhanced the fine to

₹1,00,000/-. Aggrieved, the appellant approached the Supreme

Court. The Apex Court set aside the High Court's order and

restored the sentence awarded by the Trial Court, holding that the

High Court had shown undue sympathy and reduced the sentence

without cogent reasons. It was held that sentencing must be

proportionate to the gravity of the offence, and that mere lapse of

time, subsequent events, or offer of compensation cannot justify

reduction of the substantive sentence in serious offences.

Compensation payable to the victim is only restitutory in nature,

and it cannot be considered as equivalent to or a substitute for

punishment. Punishment is punitive in nature, and its object is to

create an adequate deterrence against the said crime and to send a

social message to the miscreants that any violation of the moral

turpitude of society would come with consequences, which cannot

merely be "purchased by money".

9. The respondent/convict played an active and deliberate

role in luring PW3, facilitated the commission of rape, remained

present during the act, and subsequently also threatened her. Even

after the commission of the present offence, the conduct of the

respondent/convict has not shown any reformation. On the

contrary, as brought on record, she has been subsequently involved

in multiple criminal cases, including in Section 302 IPC and is

presently in judicial custody. This indicates a continuing pattern of

criminal behaviour rather than an isolated incident. The subsequent

involvement of the convict in grave offences demonstrates that the

respondent/convict has not stopped engaging in criminal activities.

In light of the principles laid down in Parameshwari (supra), the

Court is required to consider not only the individual circumstances

of the convict but also the impact on society and the need to

maintain public trust in law and administration. A lenient approach

in the case on hand, where the convict continues to be involved in

serious criminal activities, would be wholly misplaced and

contrary to settled sentencing principles.

10. Keeping in view the aforesaid discussion, the

respondent/convict shall undergo the following sentence:

Under Section Rigorous Fine of In default of 109 IPC read Imprisonment ₹50,000/- payment of fine, with Section for a period of the accused shall

376 IPC 10 years. undergo further Simple Imprisonment for 6 months.


                           Under Section Rigorous                   Fine   of In default, Simple
                           366 IPC             Imprisonment         ₹20,000/-   Imprisonment for
                                               for a period of 5                3 months
                                               (five) years

                           Under Section Rigorous
                           506      Part     II Imprisonment
                           IPC                 for a period of 1
                                               (one) year

                           Under Section Simple
                           323 IPC             Imprisonment
                                               for a period of 3
                                               (three) months

11. All the sentences shall run concurrently. The period

already undergone by the respondent/convict during

investigation/trial shall be set off under Section 428 Cr.P.C.