Summary
In appeals limited to sentence for a 2012 gang rape and conspiracy, the Supreme Court reduced each imprisonment term to eight years, concurrently, under the pre-2013 sentencing regime. It considered the appellants’ youth, absence of antecedents and satisfactory post-conviction prison conduct. The absence of an expressly framed Section 376(2)(g) charge caused no serious prejudice on the clear evidence of participation by both accused; the convictions remained intact.
Issues
- Whether omission of an express gang-rape charge caused serious prejudice on these facts.
- Whether adequate and special reasons justified reduction under the pre-amendment sentencing law.
Provisions considered
- Explanation 1 to Section 376(2), before the 2013 amendment, Indian Penal Code, 1860Applied the then statutory group/common-intention definition of gang rape to the evidence that both accused raped the victim. (¶ 9)
Held
- Notice had been confined to quantum of sentence, with interference in the convictions declined. The Court nevertheless examined the charge objection when assessing the sentencing submission. (¶¶ 5, 7–9)
- Although charges referred to Section 376 read with Section 120B rather than expressly Section 376(2)(g), the victim’s evidence and other material clearly established rape by both accused. No serious prejudice resulted on this record. (¶ 8–9)
- The offence preceded the 2013 amendment. The earlier proviso permitted a below-ten-year sentence for adequate and special reasons, assessed individually rather than through a fixed catalogue. (¶ 10–11)
- Considering the circumstances, no prior criminal antecedents and satisfactory prison conduct, the Court reduced the fifteen-year gang-rape term and ten-year conspiracy term to eight years each, to run concurrently. (¶ 12–13)
Result
Appeals partly allowed as to sentence. Each appellant’s imprisonment for both convictions reduced to eight years, concurrently. Convictions left intact.