In an appeal filed by the State before the Delhi High Court challenging an acquittal by the Trial Court, a Single Judge Bench of Justice Chandrasekharan Sudha refused to take a lenient approach and sentenced the respondent to rigorous imprisonment along with fine under Section 109 read with 376, Sections 366, and 506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) as well as simple imprisonment under Section 323 of IPC while directing Delhi State Legal Services Authority to award appropriate compensation to the victim.
The State contended that the offences under which the respondent was found guilty, especially that of under Section 109 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC), read with Section 376, were grave in nature. It was submitted that the respondent was involved in other criminal cases and that she was listed as a ‘wanted’ criminal at the Najafgarh police station. Additionally, it was mentioned that in a First Information Report (FIR) at Jhajjar Police Station, the respondent was stated to be in judicial custody.
The respondent submitted that she had been on trial for a long period and had been in custody for approximately 9 months. Leniency in sentencing was requested from the Court, as the respondent had a 5-year-old child with no one to look after the child.
It was noted that the offence under Sections 376, 366, 506, and 323 of the IPC, in the present case, was committed on 31-08-2013. Referring to State of M.P. v. Vikram Das (2019) 4 SCC 125 and Central Bureau of Investigation v. Md. Yaseen Wani & Ors. 2025:DHC:1293, the Court stated that the minimum sentencing provisions must be strictly followed, and even mitigating factors such as length of trial, age, or a guilty plea cannot override the statutory mandate.
The Court referred to Parameshwari v. State of T.N., 2026 SCC OnLine SC 209, to state that the compensation payable to the victim is only restitutory and that it cannot be considered as a substitute for punishment. It was stated that the respondent played an active role in luring PW3, facilitated the commission of rape, remained present during the act, and also threatened her. It was noted that even after the offence, the respondent did not show any reformation as she was subsequently found to be involved in multiple criminal cases and was in judicial custody.
It was stated that a lenient approach, where the convict continues to be involved in serious criminal activities, would be contrary to the sentencing principles. Hence, the respondent was directed to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 10 years and a fine of Rs. 50,000/- under Section 109 read with Section 376, rigorous imprisonment for 5 years with Rs. 20,000/- as fine under Section 366, rigorous imprisonment for 1 year under Section 506 (Part II), and simple imprisonment for 3 months under Section 323. All sentences were directed to run concurrently, and the period undergone was directed to be set off.
Further, the Court stated that the victim had suffered significant emotional, mental, and physical trauma while fighting for justice for more than a decade. The Court said that the respondent had also betrayed the trust of PW3 and found it appropriate to award Rs. 50,000/- as compensation from the fine amount to the victim under Section 357(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. However, the Court found the said amount to be inadequate and directed Delhi State Legal Services Authority to award appropriate compensation to the victim after making an enquiry as per Section 357A of CrPC.
Appearances:
For Appellant – Mr. Utkarsh (APP)
For Respondent – Mr. Deepak Jakhar
