LexRAMESH KUMAR versus STATE OF HARYANA
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2008] 3 S.C.R. 490 " ,. A RAMESH KUMAR II. STATE OF HARYANA (Criminal Appeal No. 398 of 2008) B FEBRUARY 27, 2008 (S.B. SINHA AND V.S. SIRPURKAR, JJ.) ~ .... Sentence/Sentencing - Life imprisonment - For commission of offence of gang rape of married woman - c Confirmed by appellate court - Appeal to this court by one of the accused - Held: In the facts of the case, no mitigating circumstances found to reduce the sentence - Moreover, appealing accused cannot be treated differently from others who are serving the life sentences - Penal Code, 1860 -· D ss.376(2)(g},506 r!w.ss.149 and 148. Appellant-accused alongwith 5 other accused was -1- prosecuted ulss.376(2)(g), 506 r/w.ss.149 and 148 IPC for having gang-raped a married woman. Trial Court convicted all the accused for the offences charged. Three E of the accused, including the appellant were sentenced to life imprisonment and the remaining three, for 10 years imprisonment. High Court upheld the conviction of all the accused. The sentence to the accused for life imprisonment was upheld. However, sentence to the .,. F accused for 10 years imprisonment was reduced to the imprisonment already undergone. In appeal to this Court, by one of the accused (appellant), the Court issued notice only on the question of sentence. Dismissing the appeal, the Court G HELD: The only plea that was raised before this Court was that the appellant comes from the poor background and that his old parents will be deprived of .).. his company. There is no material placed before the trial H 490 RAMESH KUMAR v. STATE OF HARYANA 491 [VS. SIRPURKAR, J.] " ......,. and the appellate courts as well as before this Court .in A support of his poverty. The father of the appellant has been the Sarpanch for the last 20 years. Again there would be no question of taking a lenient view particularly because . of the daring dastardly act on the part of the accused persons in which the appellant took active part inasmuch B as out of the six accused persons, he was one of the three .i> ~ accused who had committed rape on the lady. The lady was a married person and was tricked to accompany the accused who obviously had an evil design. The husband of the lady was lured on the evening of the day of c occurrence itself, taking advantage of his addiction to alcohol and it was then that the lady was lured to come out of the house. Under such circumstances, no leniency can be shown in the matter of sentence. Out of the three accused persons only one accused person has come up D _,, by way of an appeal. He cannot be treated differently from others who are serving their life sentence. [Para 9) [495-D-G; 496-A] CRIMINALAPPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No. 398 of 2008. E From the Judgment and final order dated 26/4/2006 of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in Criminal Appeal No. 127-08/2001. ---"' .- AK. Singh and Nikilesh Ramachandran for the Appellant. F Rajeev Gaur 'Naseem', Rajesh Ranjan and T.V. George for the Respondent. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by V.S. SIRPURKAR, J. 1. Leave granted. G ~ 2. This appeal is filed by one of the accused persons who was convicted for commission of offences under Sections 376 (2)(g), 506, read with Sections 149 and 148 of the Indian Penal Code. Initially as many as six accused persons came to be tried H 492 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2008] 3 S.C.R. .. A under Sections 376 (2)(g), 506 read with Sections 149 and 148 ,,_ IPC before the Sessions Court on the allegation that on the night intervening 5th and 5th February, 1999 at Village Rajapur they committed gang-rape on Smt. Nirmala Devi, wife of Lal Chand. It was further alleged that the accused persons formed an B unlawful assembly and in prosecution of common object of such assembly they also criminally intimidated said Nirmala and had also committed the offence of rioting. The Sessions Judge ~ ... convicted all the accused persons and sentenced Veer Bhan (A-1 ), Ajmer Singh (A-3) and Ramesh (A-4) for the offence under c Section 376 (2)(g) IPC and came to the conclusion that these three accused persons had gang-raped Nirmala, the prosecutrix. They were accordingly sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- each and in default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous D imprisonment for three years. It was directed that the fine, if realized, be paid
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.