The judgment of the Supreme Court in Baldev Singh v. State of Punjab led to discussions as to whether the Court was right in reducing the sentence of the accused charged for gang rape.
S. 376(2)(g) of the Indian Penal Code deals with gang rape. On the issue of sentence, provides a minimum punishment of 10 years imprisonment and a maximum of life. The court has the discretion to impose less than the minimum sentence if it finds “adequate and special reasons” for doing so. The Supreme Court has ruled in State of A.P v. Bodem Sundara Rao AIR 1996 SC 530, that the term “adequate and special reasons” ought to be strictly interpreted. This expression “adequate and special reason” is now been used very loosely, the court is covering anything and everything under this principle to reduce the sentence.
Two reasons stated by the court in the present case were:
Firstly, that the incident was an old one and had taken place 14 years prior to its judgment; secondly, that the parties had entered into a compromise and thirdly the victim is now married and has two children.
To the first reason given by the court the author coats the statement made by Mrinal Satish, JSD candidate at the Yale Law School stating that our judicial process is not known for its timeliness. Delay in proceedings are a common occurrence and hence ought not to be considered as a mitigating factor. Second and more importantly, the victim does not have control over the judicial process and delays therein, even though the accused might. As the system presently operates, it is patently unfair to the victim and is an incentive to the accused to delay proceedings.
Further, can a “compromise” between the victim and the accused persons be considered a factor in reduction of sentence? As the Court notes in the judgment, S. 376(2)(g) is not a compoundable offence and parties cannot withdraw or compromise the case, even with the permission of the court. Most crimes (including the present one) are considered as crimes against the entire society, which is why the State prosecutes the crime on behalf of the victim and society. If we let victims compromise their cases, when the law does not permit, we end up undermining the entire system. This reasoning of the court seems to be improper and the court has missed out the principle of Judicial process.( Reasoning by Mrinal Satish, JSD candidate at the Yale Law School)
In the context of the third reasoning given by the court, the author would like to coat the views of S.V. Joga Rao, in one of his articles in NLSIU review, “An attempt to judge a Judgment” writes on a very similar issue, where he critically analysis the Court decision in Kapura v. State (1988) 2 Cr.J.R Raj 426, Justice K.R Chopra observed, “Ordinarily a person like Kapura charged for rape doesn’t deserve any sympathy or indulgence from the court but looking at the fact that Ms Sita has now been married, I deem it proper to reduce the sentence of the accused appellant recorded under Section 376 IPC from 7 years to 4 years” The Court in Sadhu Singh v. State of Punjab AIR (1985) S.C 1130, held that the exercise of discretion by the Court in such situation. The Court observed that, when a discretion is vested in the trial court as to what ought to be proper sentence in a given case, such ‘discretion’ has to be exercised on the sound judicial principles. For instance, good conduct, or familial, social, educational background of the accused may be relevant factor but definitely not the marriage of the victim.
In this regard the author coats the statement made by Justice Cardozo, ‘The Nature of the judicial process’ Benjamin Cardozo, Yale University Press, 1921, he says “The judge is not a knighterrant roaming at will in pursuit of his own ideal of beauty or of goodness. He is to draw inspiration from consecrated principles.”
Yours Sincerely,
Mr. Unknown
No comments:
Post a Comment