Imposing Inadequate Sentence Showing Undue Sympathy Harms The Justice System: Delhi HC [Read Judgment]

The High Court of Delhi recently refused to reduce the sentence awarded to a 45 year old man convicted for raping and attempting to murder his ex-employer’s daughter-in-law, observing that showing undue sympathy and imposing inadequate sentence harms the justice system.

“It is the duty of every court to award proper sentence having regard to the nature of the offence and the manner in which it was committed. Undue sympathy to impose inadequate sentence would do more harm to the justice system to undermine the public confidence in the efficacy of law and society could no longer endure under such serious threats,” Justice S.P. Garg observed.

The Appellant had sought a modification of the sentence, submitting that he had already undergone substantial period of substantive sentence. The Trial Court had sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 7 years under Section 307 and for 10 years under Section 376, with both the sentence running concurrently.

The Court, however, upheld the Trial Court order, which had convicted the Appellant under Section 376 (punishment for rape) and 307 (attempt to murder) of the Indian Penal Code. It upheld the reasoning provided by the Trial Court, which had observed, “The convict in this case has committed the vile act of rape upon the prosecutrix. He also attempted to kill her. It is true that the convict is aged about 45 years and has a family to support but on the other hand we must see the plight of the prosecutrix, who was subjected to rape, which is universally considered to be amongst the most morally and physically, reprehensible crime in society and assault on the body, mind, privacy and the entire fabric of the victim. Her dignity is shredded. The social stigma attached to this crime is such that many a times, a crime would go unreported by the victim.”

Agreeing with the lower Court, Justice Garg observed, “The sentence order is based upon fair reasoning and no sound reasons exist to modify it… Possibility of the appellant to be doing the horrible crime at someone’s behest cannot be ruled out.”

Read the Judgment here.