Punjab and Haryana High Court Quashes State Election Commission's Cancellation of Panchayat Elections in Punjab J&K High Court Quashes FIR Against Bajaj Allianz, Asserts Insurance Dispute Shouldn’t Be Criminalized Sole Eyewitness's Testimony Insufficient to Sustain Murder Conviction: Madras High Court Acquits Three Accused in Murder Case Presumption of Innocence is Strengthened in Acquittal Cases; Appellate Courts Must Respect Trial Court Findings Unless Clearly Perverse: Delhi High Court NDPS | Physical or Virtual Presence of Accused is Mandatory for Extension of Detention Beyond 180 Days: Andhra Pradesh HC Bombay High Court Quashes Suspension of Welfare Benefits for Construction Workers Due to Model Code of Conduct Section 131 of Electricity Act Does Not Mandate Finalized Transfer Scheme Before Bidding: Punjab and Haryana High Court Upholds Privatization of UT Chandigarh Electricity Department Revenue Authorities Must Safeguard State Property, Not Indulge in Land Scams: Madhya Pradesh High Court Proposed Amendment Clarifies, Not Changes, Cause of Action: High Court of Jharkhand emphasizing the necessity of amendment for determining real questions in controversy. EWS Candidates Selected on Merit Should Not Be Counted Towards Reserved Quota: P&H High Court Finance Act 2022 Amendments Upheld: Supreme Court Validates Retrospective Customs Authority for DRI Mere Breach Of Contract Does Not Constitute A Criminal Offense Unless Fraudulent Intent Exists From The Start: Delhi High Court Anticipatory Bail Not Intended As A Shield To Avoid Lawful Proceedings In Cases Of Serious Crimes: Allahabad High Court Rajasthan High Court Grants Bail in Light of Prolonged Detention and Delays in Trial U/S 480 BNSS Provision Bombay High Court Orders Disclosure of Candidates' Marks in Public Recruitment Process: Promotes Transparency under RTI Act Maintenance | Father's Duty to Support Daughters Until Self-Sufficiency or Marriage: Karnataka High Court Designation of Arbitration 'Venue' as 'Seat' Confers Exclusive Jurisdiction: Supreme Court Rules in Dubai Arbitration Case Corporate Veil Shields Company Assets from Partition as Joint Family Property: Madras High Court Principal Employers Liable for ESI Contributions for Contract Workers, But Assessments Must Be Fair and Account for Eligibility: Kerala High Court Government Entities Must be Treated Equally to Private Parties in Arbitration Proceedings: Supreme Court Supreme Court Allows Resumption of Disciplinary Inquiry Against Storekeeper in Ration Misappropriation Case

Barbaric Act Deserves Deterrent Punishment: Supreme Court Sentence to 30 Years in Child Rape Case

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a landmark judgment dated February 5, 2024, the Supreme Court of India, comprising Justices C.T. Ravikumar and Rajesh Bindal, partly allowed a Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No.2888 of 2023, modifying the sentence of the petitioner, Bhaggi @ Bhagirath @ Naran, convicted for the rape of a 7-year-old girl. The bench notably observed that the “barbaric act deserves a deterrent punishment,” leading to the modification of the life imprisonment sentence to a fixed term of 30 years of rigorous imprisonment.

The petitioner was convicted under Section 376 AB of the IPC, as amended by Act No.22 of 2018, and the POCSO Act. The High Court of Madhya Pradesh had commuted his death sentence to life imprisonment. Challenging this commutation, the petitioner approached the Supreme Court.

On the Nature of the Crime: The Court, after a meticulous examination of the case facts and the heinous nature of the crime, underscored the barbaric nature of the petitioner’s actions, stating, “one can only say that the action of the petitioner-convict is barbaric though he had not acted in a brutal manner.”

Sentence Modification Rationale: The bench elucidated the need for a deterrent punishment, considering the victim’s age and the location of the crime. Justice Ravikumar remarked, “So also, the incident may haunt her and adversely impact her future married life.”

Legal Precedents: The judgment referred to several significant decisions, including ‘Shiva Kumar v. State of Karnataka’ and ‘Union of India v. V. Sriharan alias Murugan’, highlighting the Constitutional Courts’ power to impose modified or fixed-term sentences.

The Supreme Court modified the life imprisonment sentence to 30 years of rigorous imprisonment, inclusive of the period already served. Additionally, the Court imposed a fine of Rupees One Lakh, directed to be paid for the victim’s rehabilitation. The sentence for the conviction under Section 363 IPC shall run concurrently.

Date of Decision: 5th February 2024

BHAGGI @ BHAGIRATH @ NARAN VS THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

 

Similar News