Punishment to be imparted in case of gang rape
In order to exercise the discretion of reducing the sentence the statutory requirement is that the Court has to record 'adequate and special reasons' in the judgment and not fanciful reasons which would permit the Court to impose a sentence less than the prescribed minimum. The reason has not only to be adequate but special. What is adequate and special would depend upon several factors and no strait-jacket formula, can be imposed. In the case at hand, only reason which seems to have weighed with the trial Court is that the present accused appellant had not actually committed the rape. That cannot be a ground to warrant lesser sentence; more so in view of Explanation (1) to Sub-section (2) of Section 376. By operation of a deeming provision a member of a group of persons who have acted in furtherance of their common intention per se attract the minimum sentence. Section 34 has been applied by both the trial Court, and the High Court, to conclude that rape was committed in furtherance of common intention. Not only was the accused-appellant present, but also he was waiting for his turn, as evident from the fact that he was in the process of undressing. The evidence in this regard is cogent, credible and trustworthy- Since no other just or special reason was given by the trial Court nor could any such be shown as to what ware the reasons to warrant a lesser sentence, the High Court was justified in awarding the mini mum prescribed sentence. That being the position, this appeal is dismissed.
Supreme Court of India
Bhupinder Sharma vs State Of Himachal Pradesh on 16 October, 2003
Equivalent citations: AIR 2003 SC 4684, 2004 CriLJ 1, (2004) 1 GLR 761
