The Supreme Court on Monday (July 20) modified the sentence of a life convict in a gang rape case to a minimum sentence of twenty years, after noting that the convict is young, has no criminal antecedents, and there's a possibility of reformation.

“When a sentence is imposed on an offender, it is done so with trifold purpose i.e. punitive, deterrent and protective. The overall objective is to rid the society of criminal proclivity. The same is done by ensuring that the sentence imposed is proportional to the offence or in other words not overly influenced by the possibility of reformation and instead, striking a judicious balance between the interest of the victim, society and the accused, after following the due process of law.”, observed a bench of Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Augustine George Masih, while also laying down the aspects which needs to be looked into while imposing sentence.

The following aspects must be considered, it must:

“(a) Be in accordance with the nature and gravity of the crime;

(b) Adequately protect the interest of the society;

(c) Take into account the deterrent purpose of punishment;

(d) Consider the motive behind the crime, if any;

(e) Give due weight to the conduct of the accused;

(f) Examine whether the crime in question was pre-meditated or not;

(g) Keep in view the age of the accused and whether he has engaged in any similar offence in past for which he has been duly convicted;

(h) Account for the number of victims of the offence;

(i) Not consider the religion, race, caste or creed of the offender as a factor;

(j) Consider the possibility of reformation of the accused. It is the duty of the State to establish that the same does not exist; and

(k) The abuse of trust or misuse of personal relationship, if any.”

“The facets identified by us above are illustrative and not exhaustive. A holistic view of the entire case must be taken in the attending facts of each case. Considering all these factors among others, the foremost duty of the Court is to assess the evidence in a given case; imposing just and adequate punishment upon the accused.”, the Court clarified.

The offence took place in September 2016.

The appellant-convict had been convicted for gang rape committed on a victim who, at night-time, took a rickshaw from Delhi Railway Station on the assurance that the driver would drop her off at her home. Instead, the driver took her to a deserted place where another person was already present, and they proceeded to commit the offence of rape. The Trial Court and the High Court had concurrently affirmed the conviction.

While Supreme Court refused to interfere with the Appellant's conviction, however, it agreed to examine the Appellant's appeal on the limited aspect of deciding the quantum of sentence imposed on the Appellant.

Applying the aforesaid laid down aspects, the judgment authored by Justice Karol partly allowed the appeal, while modifying the Appellant's sentence from that of a life sentence till the remainder of a natural life to a minimum sentence of 20 years imposed under Section 376D of IPC (now Section 70 of BNS). The Court reasoned that “the appellant convict has no criminal antecedents; was of only 25 years when the offence was committed; 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 ten years (including remission) that he has been convicted, he has maintained a good conduct.”, the Court added.

Further, the Court expressed its reluctance to reduce the sentence below twenty years, noting that post-2013 criminal law amendment, gang rape is exclusively categorised as a distinct offence with a minimum sentence of twenty years and maximum sentence of a life sentence till the remainder of a natural life. Because of 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, the Court said that now the Courts are bound to uphold the legislative recognition of the seriousness of the offence.

“Considering the principles discussed above and applying them to the factors accruing in favour of the appellant - convict noted earlier, we deem it appropriate to modify the sentence to 20 years with benefit of remission, if any. The appeal is partly allowed.”, the Court held.

Cause Title: EHSAAN VERSUS STATE OF NATIONAL CAPITAL TERRITORY OF DELHI

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 697

Click here to download judgment

Appearance:

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Vardhman Kaushik, AOR Ms. Priya Nair, Adv. Ms. Kavya Shukla, Adv. Mr. Azad Bansala, Adv. Mr. Mayank Sharma, Adv. Mr. Arindam Sarin, Adv. Ms. Priya Nair, Adv.

For Respondent(s) : Mr. Kanakamedla Ravinder Kumar, A.S.G. Mr. Mukesh Kumar Maroria, AOR Mr. Siddhart Gupta, Adv. Mr. Aditya Kumar, Adv. Mr. Gaurang Bhushun, Adv. Mr. Devraj Bhattacharjee, Adv. Mr. Prashant Singh II, Adv. Mr. Udit Dedhiya, Adv.