Registrar Has No Power To Cancel Registered Sale Deeds: Madras High Court Reaffirms Civil Court’s Exclusive Jurisdiction MP High Court Refuses to Quash FIR Against Principal of Sacred Heart Convent High School in Forced Conversion Case Employees Of Registered Societies Cannot Claim Article 311 Protection: Delhi High Court Clarifies Limits Of Constitutional Safeguards In Private Employment Maintenance Cannot Be Doubled Without Cogent Reasons, Wife's Education And Earning Capacity Relevant Factors: Gujarat High Court A Foreign Award Must First Be "Recognised" Before It Becomes A Decree: Bombay High Court A Registered Will Does Not Become Genuine Merely Because It Is Registered: Andhra Pradesh High Court Rejects Suspicious Testament Compensation Under Railways Act Requires Proof of Bona Fide Passenger – Mere GRP Entry and Medical Records Cannot Establish ‘Untoward Incident’: Delhi High Court Tenancy Rights Cannot Be Bequeathed By Will: Himachal Pradesh High Court Declares Mutation Based On Tenant’s Will Void Preventive Detention Cannot Be Based On Mere Apprehension of Bail: Delhi High Court Quashes PITNDPS Detention Order Probate Court Alone Has Exclusive Jurisdiction To Decide Validity Of Will – Probate Petition Cannot Be Rejected Merely Because A Civil Suit Is Pending: Allahabad High Court PwD Candidates Cannot Be Denied Appointment After Selection; Authorities Must Accommodate Them In Suitable Posts: Supreme Court Directs SSC And CAG To Appoint Candidates With Disabilities When Registered Partition Deed Exists, Plea Of Prior Oral Partition Cannot Override It:  Madras High Court Dismisses Second Appeal Municipal Bodies Cannot Demand Character Verification Of Residents: Calcutta High Court Strikes Down Surveillance Condition In Building Sanction State Cannot Exploit Contractual Workers For Perennial Work: Punjab & Haryana High Court Grants Pay Parity To PUNBUS Drivers And Conductors Police Inputs Cannot Create New Building Laws: Calcutta High Court Strikes Down Security-Based Conditions Near Nabanna 'Raising A Child As Daughter Does Not Make Her An Adopted Child': Punjab & Haryana High Court Once Leave Under Section 80(2) CPC Is Granted, Prior Notice to Government Is Not Mandatory: Orissa High Court Restores Trial Court Decree State Cannot Use Article 226 To Evade Compliance With Court Orders: Gauhati High Court Dismisses Union’s Petition With Costs ED Officers Accused Of Assault By ₹23-Crore Scam Accused – FIR Survives But Probe Shifted To CBI: Jharkhand High Court High Courts Should Not Interfere In Academic Integrity Proceedings At Preliminary Stage: Kerala High Court Power Of Attorney Holder With Personal Knowledge Can Depose In Cheque Bounce Cases: Kerala High Court Sets Aside Acquittal Agreement Cannot Dissolve Hindu Marriage, But Can Prove Mutual Separation”: J&K & Ladakh High Court Denies Maintenance

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