AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
No AI summary yet
Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.
Judgment
7 paragraphs · 213 wordsLeave granted.
We have heard learned counsel for the parties. We are not inclined to interfere with the conviction and sentence rendered by the trial court and affirmed by the High Court, whereby the Appellant had been convicted alongwith one other (who was later found to be a juvenile by this Court) for having committed the offence of gang rape punishable under Section 376 (2)(g) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short 'the IPC').
The offence took place prior to the amendment of the IPC, on 22nd July, 1998. The minimum sentence ever at that time was ten years. However the proviso to Section 376 (2)(g) of the IPC provided that for special reasons to be recorded, lesser sentence may be awarded.
As far as the present case is concerned, more than two decades have elapsed since the occurrence took place. Both the victim and the appellant have married though separately; the appellant has three minor children and is working as daily wage labourer.
Keeping all these factors into consideration, we reduce the sentence to seven years' Rigorous Imprisonment instead of ten years' Rigorous Imprisonment as imposed by the trial court and affirmed by the High Court.
The Appeal is allowed to the aforesaid extent.
Pending applications, if any, are disposed of.