Delhi High Court Modifies Life Sentence To 20 Years Imprisonment In 2015 Rape And Murder Case

The Delhi High Court has modified life sentence in a 2015 rape and murder case to rigorous imprisonment for a period of 20 years without remission, while considering the mitigating and extenuating circumstances.

The bench of Justice Mukta Gupta and Justice Poonam A. Bamba noted the mitigating circumstances in the case are that the age of the appellant is 38 years at the moment, he has undergone 8 years of imprisonment and that he has two minor children and a wife to look after and there is no other person in the family to look after them.

"At the same time, the diabolic and depraved manner in which the appellant took the victim to a solitary place and not only sexually assaulted her but inserted broken sticks in her vaginal and anal cavities and thereafter committed the murder by strangulation, deserves imprisonment for a fixed term beyond remission as provided in [Union of India vs.] V. Sriharan," said the court.

The court was hearing the appeal against the 2018 judgment whereby the appellant was convicted for committing rape and murder of the victim in the gruesome manner. The appellant also challenged the order on sentence whereby he was sentenced to imprisonment for life for offences punishable under Sections 302 and 376A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

Considering the last seen theory, circumstantial and medical evidences, the division bench on May 18 upheld the trial Court judgement of conviction by stating that, “...the circumstances relied upon by the prosecution unerringly point towards the guilt of the appellant in having committed the offence of murder and rape of the victim beyond reasonable doubt.”

After hearing the parties on modification of life imprisonment and other sentences awarded by the trial court, the court referred to the Supreme Court’s decision in Mukesh v. State (NCT of Delhi) wherein the court observed:

“Society's reasonable expectation is that deterrent punishment commensurate with the gravity of the offence be awarded. When the crime is brutal, shocking the collective conscience of the community, sympathy in any form would be misplaced and it would shake the confidence of public in the administration of criminal- justice system. As held in Om Prakash v. State of Haryana[Om Prakashv.State of Haryana, (1999) 3 SCC 19 : 1999 SCC (Cri) 334] , the Court must respond to the cry of the society and to settle what would be a deterrent punishment for what was an apparently abominable crime”.

Case Title: Ram Tej v. State

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 456

Appearance: Advocates B. Badrinath with Rajesh Raj for appellant.

APP Prithu Garg for state.

Click Here To Read/Download Judgment