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 Preventive Detention Not Warranted If Person Can Be Dealt With Under Ordinary Laws; No Effort To Arrest In Pending Cases: Supreme Court Writ Petition Cannot Be Dismissed On ‘Forum Non Conveniens’ If Respondent's Office Is Within Court's Jurisdiction: Supreme Court Supreme Court Doubts 'Sajjan Singh' Ruling; Refers To Larger Bench Whether Third Judge Can Re-examine Unanimous Findings Under Section 392 CrPC SARFAESI Sale Vitiated If Balance 75% Bid Amount Is Paid Beyond 15 Days Without Written Extension Agreement: Supreme Court Delhi High Court Can't Refuse Writ Petition Against BSF Dismissal Merely Because Cause Of Action Arose Outside Delhi: Supreme Court Private Rights Must Yield To Public Interest: Andhra Pradesh High Court Directs Removal Of Encroachments On Public Road Review Jurisdiction Cannot Be Invoked To Re-Agitate Factual Disputes Or Seek Re-Hearing On Merits: Allahabad High Court Recovery Under Section 27 Evidence Act Vitiated If Police Already Present At Spot Before Arrival Of Panch Witnesses: Bombay High Court Mere Non-Compliance Or Delay In Procedure Under Section 52A NDPS Act Is An Irregularity, Not An Illegality Entitling Accused To Bail: Calcutta High Court Recovery Of Weapon Used In Commission Of Offence Not A Sine Qua Non For Conviction If Ocular Evidence Is Corroborated: Allahabad High Court Seized Vehicles Shouldn't Be Kept Idle To Rot In Police Stations, Utility Vanishes Due To Stagnation: Karnataka High Court Or 39 CPC | Trial Court Erred In Dismissing Injunction Application Despite Respondent's 'No Objection' To Restraining Share Transfer: Gauhati High Court Issuing NBW Merely For Absence Of Accused Already On Bail Is Improper; Liberty Cannot Be Dealt With Lightly: Orissa High Court 138 NI | Expert Examination Of Disputed Documents Essential For Just Adjudication If Complainant Denies Handwriting & Signatures: Rajasthan High Court Order 41 Rule 27 CPC Cannot Be Invoked To Fill Lacunae In Evidence If Party Voluntarily Closed Evidence In Trial Court: Delhi High Court

Supreme Court Suspends Sentence in Section 376D IPC Case - Victim's Voluntary Actions

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a recent verdict, the Supreme Court of India granted a significant reprieve to the appellant, Yasheed @ Rasheed, by suspending his sentence in a case involving Section 376D of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The decision, rendered on 22nd September 2023 by a bench comprising HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARAVIND KUMAR, came after the High Court's refusal to suspend his sentence.

The case revolved around Yasheed @ Rasheed and a juvenile co-accused who were alleged to have committed an offence under Section 376D IPC. What made this case peculiar was that the victim, a major, had reportedly gone of her own volition with both the accused and was restored back a week later. Initially, in her statement, she did not allege rape. However, four days later, she made such allegations in the statement recorded under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The Trial Court's findings also indicated that the victim had voluntarily gone with the accused persons.

In light of these circumstances, the Supreme Court observed, "Having regard to all these circumstances, the Court is of the opinion that the sentence of the present appellant should be suspended and he be released on bail, subject to such terms and conditions as the Trial Court may impose. One such condition shall be the requirement of his having to report on a weekly basis to the concerned Police Station."

This decision emphasizes the importance of considering the specific circumstances of a case when deciding on the suspension of a sentence, particularly in cases involving serious offences like Section 376D IPC. The Court's ruling underscores the need for a balanced approach, taking into account all relevant factors.

The Supreme Court has requested the High Court to expedite the appeal process, with a clear indication that its observations in this order should not be construed as reflecting on the merits of the case.

The appellant was represented by Mr. Gaurav Agrawal, AOR, and Mr. Manan Daga, Adv., while the respondent, the State of Rajasthan, was represented by Mrs. Preeti Thanvi, Adv., Mr. Anand Shankar, AOR, and Mr. Onkar Nath, Adv.

This judgment serves as a reminder of the judiciary's role in ensuring fair and just outcomes, even in cases with complex and sensitive circumstances.

Date of Decision: 22nd SEPTEMBER 2023

YASHEED @ RASHEED vs THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN               

Latest Legal News