CBI Can’t Prosecute When Bank Suffers No Loss: Andhra Pradesh High Court Discharges Bhimavaram Hospitals Directors in ₹1.5 Crore SBI Case Section 256 CrPC Cannot Be A Shield For An Accused Who Never Faced Trial: Allahabad High Court Restores 8 Cheque Bounce Complaints Minimum Wages Cannot Be Ignored While Determining Just Compensation: Andhra Pradesh High Court Re-Fixes Income of Deceased Mason, Enhances Interest to 7.5% 34 IPC | Common Intention Is Inferred From Manner Of Attack, Weapons Carried And Concerted Conduct: Allahabad High Court Last Date of Section 4 Publication Is Crucial—Error in Date Cannot Depress Market Value: Bombay High Court Enhances Compensation in Beed Land Acquisition Appeals Order 26 Rule 10-A CPC | Rarest of Rare: When a Mother Denies Her Own Child: Rajasthan High Court Orders DNA Test to Decide Maternity Acquittal Is Not a Passport Back to Uniform: Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds Dismissal of Constable in NDPS Case Despite Trial Court Verdict Limitation Under Section 468 Cr.P.C. Cannot Be Ignored — But Section 473 Keeps the Door Open in the Interest of Justice: P&H HC Non-Stamping Renders A Document Inadmissible, Not Void – Defect Is Curable Once Duty Is Paid: Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds Specific Performance MP High Court Upholds Ladli Behna Yojana Criteria; Rules Registration Deadlines and Age Limits Fall Under Executive Domain Criminal Courts Are Not Recovery Agents: Orissa High Court Grants Bail in ₹3.5 Crore Land Fraud Cases Citing Article 21 and Terminal Illness Employee Cannot Switch Cadre At His Sweet Will After Accepting Promotion: J&K High Court Rejects Claim For Retrospective Assistant Registrar Appointment Anticipatory Bail Cannot Expire With Charge-Sheet: Supreme Court Reiterates Liberty Is Not Bound by Procedural Milestones Order II Rule 2 Cannot Eclipse Amendment Power Under Order VI Rule 17: MP High Court Refuses to Stall Will-Based Title Suit Grounds of Arrest Must Be Personal, Not Formal – But Detailed Allegations Suffice: Kerala High Court Upholds Arrest in Sabarimala Gold Misappropriation Case Grounds of Arrest Are Not a Ritual – They Are a Constitutional Mandate Under Article 22(1): Allahabad High Court Sets Aside Arrest for Non-Supply of Written Grounds Sect. 25 NDPS | Mere Ownership Cannot Fasten NDPS Liability – ‘Knowingly Permits’ Must Be Proved Beyond Reasonable Doubt: MP High Court Section 308 CrPC | Revocation of Pardon Is Not Automatic on Prosecutor’s Certificate: Karnataka High Court Joint Family and Ancestral Property Are Alien to Mohammedan Law: Gujarat High Court Sets Aside Injunction Right to Health Cannot Wait for Endless Consultations: Supreme Court Pulls Up FSSAI Over Delay in Front-of-Pack Warning Labels If A Son Dies Intestate Leaving Wife And Children, The Mother Has No Share: Karnataka 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