Consensual Relationship That Later Turns Sour Is Not Rape: Andhra Pradesh High Court Grants Bail in Breach of Promise Case Double Presumption of Innocence Applies; No Interference Unless Trial Court Judgment Is Perverse: Allahabad High Court in Murder Appeal Under BNSS A Single Act of Corruption Warrants Dismissal – 32 Years of Service Offers No Immunity: Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds ASI’s Removal Suit Against Trustee Without Charity Commissioner’s Consent Is Statutorily Barred: Bombay High Court Mutation Order Without Notice Cannot Stand in Law: Orissa High Court Quashes Tahasildar's Rejection for Violating Natural Justice Illegal Remand Without Production of Accused Is Not a Technical Lapse, But a Constitutional Breach: Andhra Pradesh High Court Grants Bail in Major NDPS Case Inherent Power Under Section 528 BNSS Not a Substitute for Article 226 When FIR Is Under Challenge Without Chargesheet or Cognizance Order: Allahabad High Court Possession Without Title Is Legally Insubstantial: Gujarat HC Dismisses Appeal By Dairy Cooperative Over Void Land Transfer You Can Prosecute a Former Director, But You Can’t Force Him to Represent the Company: Calcutta High Court Lays Down Clear Limits on Corporate Representation in PMLA Cases Conviction Cannot Rest on Tainted Testimony of Injured Witnesses in Isolation: Bombay High Court Acquits Five in Murder Case One Attesting Witness is Sufficient if He Proves Execution and Attestation of Will as Required by Law: AP High Court Land Acquisition | Delay Cannot Defeat Just Compensation: P&H High Court Grants Enhanced Compensation Despite 12-Year Delay in Review Petitions by Landowners Allegations Implausible, Motivated by Malice: Kerala High Court Quashes Rape Case After Finding Abuse Claims a Counterblast to Civil Dispute Adoptions Under Hindu Law Need No Approval from District Magistrate: Madras High Court Declares Administrative Rejection of Adoptive Birth Certificate as Illegal

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