Section 164 CrPC Statement Recorded Without Procedural Safeguards Or 'Cooling-Off' Period Not A Valid Confession: Jharkhand High Court Anticipatory Bail Cannot Be Denied Merely Because Investigation Is At A Nascent Stage If Custodial Interrogation Is Not Indispensable: Telangana High Court Actual Pay Drawn During Last 10 Months Must Be Basis For Pension Calculation, Regardless Of Notional Pay In Parent Bank: Punjab & Haryana High Court Limitation For Redemption Of Usufructuary Mortgage Starts Only When Mortgage Money Is Paid Or Tendered: Allahabad High Court Exclusion Of Natural Heir From Will Not A Suspicious Circumstance If Execution Is Duly Proved: Punjab & Haryana High Court Right To Travel Abroad Is A Basic Human Right; Permission Cannot Be Denied Merely Because Visit Is For 'Social Or Celebratory' Purpose: Andhra Pradesh High Court Citizen Cannot Be Externed Merely For Raising Grievances Against Government Decisions: Bombay High Court Lack Of Opportunity To Cross-Examine Partition Commissioner Does Not Vitiate Final Decree; Report Is Part Of Record: Calcutta High Court Section 27 Evidence Act Recoveries Inadmissible If Police Had Prior Knowledge Of Location Before Recording Disclosure: Delhi High Court Foreigners Act | Burden Of Proof To Establish Citizenship Solely On Proceedee, Never Shifts; Prescription For Parkinson's No Proof Of Mental Illness To Explain Testimony Contradictions: Gauhati High Court Trial Court Erred In Abating Suit While Application To Bring Legal Heirs On Record Was Pending: Gujarat High Court Places Of Worship Act 1991 Not A Shield Against Land Acquisition By State For Public Purpose: Allahabad High Court Unregistered Partition Deed Creating New Rights In Immovable Property Inadmissible In Evidence: Himachal Pradesh High Court Illiteracy No Excuse For Filing False Income Tax Returns, Court Must Presume Culpable Mental State Under Section 278E: Jharkhand High Court Trial Court Must Consider Convenience Of Family & Accused's Right To Assist Counsel While Deciding Jail Shifting Applications: J&K High Court Investigation Substantially Complete, Offence Carries Max 7 Years Jail: Karnataka High Court Grants Bail To Police Officers In Corruption Case Buyer's Knowledge Of Title Defect Doesn't Extinguish Statutory Warranty Of Title Unless Sale Deed Specifically Excludes It: Kerala High Court Madras High Court Sets Aside Appointment Of PAs To Judges, Says Relaxation Of Qualifications Via Circular Violates Article 14 BNSS | Mere Allegation Of Calling Deceased To Spot Not Sufficient To Deny Bail To Woman If Charge Sheet Filed: Orissa High Court Amendment To Rectify Property Description In Agreement To Sell Can Be Allowed At Any Stage Of Specific Performance Suit: Delhi High Court NDPS | Confession Before Police Cannot Be Sole Basis For Prosecution: Telangana High Court Grants Bail No Judicial Sanctity For Adulterous Relationships: J&K High Court Refuses To Quash Abduction FIR Involving Married Woman Habitual Offender Accused Of Brutal Murder Of SC Community Member Denied Bail: Kerala High Court Prosecution Fails To Prove Murder Charge As Recovery Witnesses Turn Hostile: Uttarakhand High Court Acquits Man Acquittal In Criminal Case Based On Benefit Of Doubt Does Not Automatically Absolve Employee From Disciplinary Liability: Madhya Pradesh High Court Punjab & Haryana HC Quashes FIR Against Woman For Dressing Pet Dog As Lord Krishna Personal Laws Cannot Be Used As Shield To Commit Gang Rape Under Garb Of Nikah Halala: Allahabad 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