Read Time: 09 minutes

"The object of sentencing policy should be to see that the crime does not go unpunished and the victim of crime as also the society has the satisfaction that justice has been done to it," a Bombay High Court Bench consisting of Justice Kotawal and Justice Sadhna S. has held, upholding life imprisonment for the crime of gang rape of a woman at knife point, in a moving vehicle.

The court was hearing an appeal against the order of Additional Sessions Judge, Pune who had convicted the appellants under Section 120-B, 342, 336 of the Indian Penal Code and they were sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life and to pay fine for the crime.

The convicts had asked for leniency from the High Court due to the fact that they had been in jail since 2010. The appellants had also challenged their conviction on grounds of delay in filing of FIR, planting of evidence and non-exhibition of test identification parade memo.

The court while dismissing the appeal held that the prosecution’s case is dependent upon the victim’s testimony which is found satisfactory and reliable. During the trial the defence had tried to blame the victim contending that she was drunk, roaming around with criminals and she "fell in love in her short interaction with the accused" and had sexual intercourse with him.

The court came down heavily on the defence for this line of questioning and stated that it crossed all line of basic dignity.

The court cited provisions under Section 151 and 152 of the Indian Evidence Act, which makes the Court was duty bound to forbid any question which appeared to be intended to insult or annoy or is indecent or scandalous. The High Court Bench further quoted: “The learned trial Judge failed in his duty in not protecting the dignity of PW-1 and not exercising his powers under Sections 151 and 152 of the Indian Evidence Act.”

On the issues of non-exhibition of test identification parade, the court relied on the case of Raja Vs. State by the Inspector of Police of the Hon’ble Supreme Court wherein it was held that: “If material on record sufficiently indicates that reasons for “gaining an enduring impression of the identity on the mind and memory of the witnesses” are available on record, the matter stands in a completely different perspective; and in such cases, even nonholding of identification parade would not be fatal to the case of the prosecution.”

Relying on the above precedent, the High Court held that: “Applying this test to the facts of the present case, certain aspects are required to be considered. All the accused were in the same car with PW-1 for sufficiently long time. They committed a heinous crime. PW-1 had no escape and had no option but to be in close contact with all the accused during the entire journey through her entire ordeal. Therefore, it is not only natural for her to remember their faces but it is impossible for her to forget their faces. After such a traumatic experience she was unlikely to forgot their features.”

On the issue of reducing the quantum of sentence based on the fact that the accussed has served a substantial jail sentence and were young at the time of commission of the crime, the court rejected such plea.

The court placed reliance on a case where it was held that: “...in recent years, the rising crime rate, particularly violent crimes against women had made the criminal sentencing by the Courts a subject of concern. The sentencing policy adopted by the Courts, in such cases, ought to have a stricter yardstick so as to act as a deterrent."

Lamenting about the "shockingly large number of cases" where sentence of punishment is disproportionate to the gravity and magnitude of the offence, the court said these cases result in "encouraging the criminal and in the ultimate making justice suffer by weakening the system’s credibility."

The bench added, "The object of sentencing policy should be to see that the crime does not go unpunished and the victim of crime as also the society has the satisfaction that justice has been done to it.”

Therefore, the Hon’ble Court reiterated that severe punishment acts as a deterrent to possible criminals and also provides justice to the victims.

Case Title: Ranjeet Shahaji Gade & Ors. V. The State of Maharashtra