Cruelty Need Not Be Physical: Mental Agony and Emotional Distress Are Sufficient Grounds for Divorce: Supreme Court Section 195 Cr.P.C. | Tribunals Are Not Courts: Private Complaints for Offences Like False Evidence Valid: Supreme Court Limitation | Right to Appeal Is Fundamental, Especially When Liberty Is at Stake: Supreme Court Condones 1637-Day Delay FIR Quashed | No Mens Rea, No Crime: Supreme Court Emphasizes Protection of Public Servants Acting in Good Faith Trademark | Passing Off Rights Trump Registration Rights: Delhi High Court A Minor Procedural Delay Should Not Disqualify Advances as Export Credit When Exports Are Fulfilled on Time: Bombay HC Preventive Detention Must Be Based on Relevant and Proximate Material: J&K High Court Terrorism Stems From Hateful Thoughts, Not Physical Abilities: Madhya Pradesh High Court Denies Bail of Alleged ISIS Conspiracy Forwarding Offensive Content Equals Liability: Madras High Court Upholds Conviction for Derogatory Social Media Post Against Women Journalists Investigation by Trap Leader Prejudiced the Case: Rajasthan High Court Quashes Conviction in PC Case VAT | Notice Issued Beyond Limitation Period Cannot Reopen Assessment: Kerala High Court Fishing Inquiry Not Permissible Under Section 91, Cr.P.C.: High Court Quashes Trial Court’s Order Directing CBI to Produce Unrelied Statements and Case Diary Vague and Omnibus Allegations Cannot Sustain Criminal Prosecution in Matrimonial Disputes: Calcutta High Court High Court Emphasizes Assessee’s Burden of Proof in Unexplained Cash Deposits Case Effective, efficient, and expeditious alternative remedies have been provided by the statute: High Court Dismisses Petition for New Commercial Electricity Connection Permissive Use Cannot Ripen into Right of Prescriptive Easement: Kerala High Court High Court Slams Procedural Delays, Orders FSL Report in Assault Case to Prevent Miscarriage of Justice Petitioner Did Not Endorse Part-Payments on Cheque; Section 138 NI Act Not Attracted: Madras High Court Minority Christian Schools Not Bound by Rules of 2018; Disciplinary Proceedings Can Continue: High Court of Calcutta Absence of Receipts No Barrier to Justice: Madras High Court Orders Theft Complaint Referral Under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C Rajasthan High Court Emphasizes Rehabilitation, Grants Probation to 67-Year-Old Convicted of Kidnapping" P&H High Court Dismisses Contempt Petition Against Advocate Renuka Chopra: “A Frustrated Outburst Amid Systemic Challenges” Kerala High Court Criticizes Irregularities in Sabarimala Melsanthi Selection, Orders Compliance with Guidelines Non-Payment of Rent Does Not Constitute Criminal Breach of Trust: Calcutta High Court Administrative Orders Cannot Override Terminated Contracts: Rajasthan High Court Affirms in Landmark Decision Minimum Wage Claims Must Be Resolved by Designated Authorities Under the Minimum Wages Act, Not the Labour Court: Punjab and Haryana High Court Madras High Court Confirms Equal Coparcenary Rights for Daughters, Emphasizes Ancestral Property Rights Home Station Preferences Upheld in Transfer Case: Kerala High Court Overrules Tribunal on Teachers' Transfer Policy Failure to Formally Request Cross-Examination Does Not Invalidate Assessment Order: Calcutta 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

 

Similar News