The Delhi High Court recently modified the jail term of five men convicted in a gang rape case, replacing the original sentence of "life for the remainder of convicts' natural life" with "life imprisonment."
The Division Bench comprising Justice Mukta Gupta and Justice Poonam A. Bamba observed that the appellants had failed to demonstrate any illegality in the judgment that convicted them for the offenses they were charged with.
The accused had filed a batch of five appeals challenging their conviction by the Trial Court. Senior Advocate Vivek Sood, along with Advocates Rajiv Bajaj and Kanhaiya Singhal, represented the appellants, while APP Laksh Khanna represented the respondent, the State.
In this particular case, the appellants were convicted for offenses punishable under Sections 366/34 and 376-D of the Indian Penal Code. The Trial Court sentenced them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life, which meant imprisonment for the remainder of their natural lives, along with a fine of Rs. 5,000 each. In case of default in paying the fine, they were to undergo an additional one-year term of simple imprisonment.
According to the prosecution, the victim, a resident of Nepal, was traveling to Jalandhar to meet her sister in 2014 when the incident occurred. She encountered one of the five men at a railway station who lured her outside under the pretext of getting her food but instead took her to another location in a van where the remaining four co-accused were waiting. The appellants then took her to a room and subjected her to gang rape.
The High Court, after considering the arguments put forth by the counsel, noted that the victim had identified all the accused in court. Furthermore, forensic reports corroborated her statement that appellant Aman had raped her in the room. The Court acknowledged the defense's plea for a reduction in sentence, highlighting the appellants' young age (around 25 years at the time of the offense), their families dependent on them as the sole breadwinners, and their lack of prior criminal involvement. The defense also emphasized that the appellants had spent nearly a decade in custody and expressed remorse, seeking an opportunity for rehabilitation.
Taking into account the overall facts, circumstances, the background of the appellants, and the strata of society they belonged to, the Court concluded that life imprisonment would meet the ends of justice for the offense punishable under Section 376(D) of the IPC.
Thus, the Delhi High Court modified the sentence of the appellants, reducing it from "life for the remainder of convicts' natural life" to "life imprisonment." The Court upheld their conviction, stating that the appellants had not provided any reason why the victim would falsely identify or implicate them while allowing the real culprits to go unpunished.
Picture Source :
