THONGAM TARUN SINGH versus THE STATE OF MANIPUR

Citation: [2019] 7 S.C.R. 143 · Decided: 30-04-2019 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: R. BANUMATHI · Disposal: Case Partly allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
143
THONGAM TARUN SINGH
v.
THE STATE OF MANIPUR
(Criminal Appeal No. 805 of 2019)
APRIL 30, 2019
[R. BANUMATHI AND S. ABDUL NAZEER, JJ.]
Sentence/Sentencing: Gang rape of girl aged 16 years –
Prosecution case was that accused no.1 picked up the victim in a
car along with his friend accused no.2 and took her to a restaurant
where he forcibly gave her a soft drink mixed with intoxicant –
After taking the said drink, the victim fell unconscious – Thereafter,
the accused-appellants committed rape on her –  Appellant
convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for fifteen
years with fine of Rs.25,000 for offence under s.376(2)(g) and
rigorous imprisonment for 10 years for offence under s.120-B and
both the sentence were to run concurrently – In the instant appeal,
the conviction was upheld – Challenge limited to quantum of sentence
– Held:  Prior to the amendment (Amendment Act 13 of 2013), for
the punishment under s.376(2)(g) IPC, it provided for rigorous
imprisonment for a term not less than ten years but which may be
for life and shall also be liable to fine – Prior to the amendment
(Amendment Act 13 of 2013) by the proviso to s.376(2) IPC, the
Court was vested with the discretion that for adequate and special
reasons to be mentioned in the judgment, impose a sentence of
imprisonment of either description for a term of less than ten years
– At the time of occurrence,  appellant no. 1 was working as a
police driver and appellant no. 2 was a singer having good
reputation, performing as a singer on the stage and both the
appellants were aged about 24-25 years – Both the appellants had
no criminal antecedents and they hailed from backward area – The
certificate issued from the Jail Authorities showed their good and
satisfactory  conduct and participation in the sports/garden activities
and other programmes of the Jail – Therefore, in the facts and
circumstances of the case, the sentence of imprisonment of fifteen
years (for the conviction under s. 376(2)(g) IPC) and sentence of
imprisonment of ten years (for the conviction under s.120B IPC)
   [2019] 7 S.C.R. 143
143
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
144
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 7 S.C.R.
are reduced to eight years and both the sentences are to run
concurrently – Penal Code, 1860 – s.376(2)(g) and s.120-B – Crime
against women.
Partly allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1. The evidence of PW-5 and the owner of the Hotel
(PW-3) and the materials adduced by the prosecution clearly
showed that  the victim was subjected to rape both by accused
no. 1 as well as accused no. 2. When the evidence adduced by
the prosecution was very clear that she was subjected to sexual
intercourse by more than one person, the act clearly fell within
Explanation 1 to Section 376 (prior to the Amendment Act 2013).
In view of the evidence of PW-5 and other evidences, even though
no charge was framed under Section 376(2)(g)IPC, the conviction
of the appellants under Section 376(2)(g) IPC cannot be faulted.
The evidence adduced by the prosecution in particular evidence
of the victim (PW-5), clearly showed that no serious prejudice
was caused to the appellants by conviction under Section 376(2)(g)
IPC. [Para 9] [147-D-F; G; 148-A]
2.  As far as quantum of sentence is concerned, Section
376 IPC- punishment for rape has been amended by Act 13 of
2013 (with retrospective effect from 03.02.2013). As per the
amended section, the minimum sentence of seven years is
provided for the offence of rape which may extend to
imprisonment for life. After the amendment, no discretion was
vested with the Court to reduce the sentence. Prior to the
amendment (Amendment Act 13 of 2013) for the punishment
under Section 376(2)(g) IPC, it provided for rigorous
imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than ten years
but which may be for life and shall also be liable to fine. Prior to
the amendment (Amendment Act 13 of 2013) by the proviso to
Section 376(2) IPC, the Court has been vested with the discretion
that for adequate and special reasons to be mentioned in the
judgment, impose a sentence of imprisonment of either
description for a term of less than ten years.  What is ‘adequate
and special reasons’  would depend upon several factors and no
strait-jacket formula can be imposed. No catalogue can be
prescribed for adequacy of reasons nor instances can be cited
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
145
regarding special reasons. They differ from case to case.
[Paras 10, 11] [148-B-E]
3.  At the time of occurrence,  appellant

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.