Conviction Under Section 409 IPC Postulates Strict Proof Of Entrustment; Suspicion However Grave Cannot Substitute Proof: Supreme Court Criminal Prosecution Emanating From Past Matrimonial Relationship Ought Not To Linger After Divorce: Supreme Court Negligence Of Previous Counsel Not A Ground To Reopen Concluded Pre-Charge Evidence Under Section 311 CrPC: Allahabad High Court Unregistered Agreement To Sell Cannot Protect Tenant's Possession Under Section 53A Transfer Of Property Act: Delhi High Court Certified Copies Of Registered Sale Deeds Admissible As Secondary Evidence Without Proving Loss Of Original: Gauhati High Court Counsel Representing Deceased Party Must Inform Court Of Death Under Order XXII Rule 10-A CPC: J&K High Court Son Staying In Father's House Out Of Love And Affection Is A Mere Licensee, Cannot Challenge Father's Title: Delhi High Court Conviction For Murder Cannot Stand Where Single Blow Inflicted In Sudden Fight Without Premeditation: Uttarakhand High Court Inability To Trace Suppliers Or Buyers No Ground For Custodial Interrogation Once Recovery Is Effected: Punjab & Haryana High Court Right To Assemble Peacefully To Celebrate Association Anniversary Is A Fundamental Right; Unlawful Assembly Per Se Not An Offence: Madras High Court Marriage Photographs Can Be Relied Upon To Estimate Quantity Of Gold Ornaments In Matrimonial Disputes: Kerala High Court POCSO Act Not Confined To Securing Convictions, Soul Of Law Lies In Preserving Childhood Dignity & Healing: Madras High Court Special Appeal Maintainable If Single Judge's Order Relates To Authority Acting Without Statutory Appellate Jurisdiction: Allahabad High Court Recall Of Witness For Cross-Examination Permissible On Newly Framed Issue Post-Remand Even If Disposal Timeline Is Fixed: Karnataka High Court Litigant Cannot Overcome Law Of Limitation By Shifting Blame On Counsel Through Inconsistent Stands: Madras High Court Cross-Cases Cannot Be Clubbed If Co-Accused In Complaint Case Is Absconding & Complainant Delayed Process: Allahabad High Court Cross-Cases Cannot Be Clubbed If Co-Accused In Complaint Case Is Absconding & Complainant Delayed Process: Allahabad High Court

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

 

Latest Legal News