Delhi HC Modifies Sentence In 2014 Gang-Rape Case To Life Imprisonment

The Delhi High Court on Monday made a modification to the sentence awarded by a trial court in a 2014 gang-rape case. The convicts’ punishment was changed from life imprisonment for the remainder of their natural lives to life imprisonment.

A division bench of Justice Mukta Gupta and Justice Poonam A Bamba held, “After considering all the facts and circumstances, including the appellants’ background, their social status, their age, and the fact that all but one of them are first-time offenders who have expressed remorse, we believe that life imprisonment would serve the interests of justice for the offense of gang-rape under section 376(D) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). Thus, the appellants’ sentence under Section 376(D) IPC is modified from ‘life imprisonment for the remainder of their natural lives’ to ‘life imprisonment’.”

The bench ruled that the five convicts Aman, Rahul, Mohd Wasim, Sunny, and Bal Kishan have failed to establish any illegality in the trial court’s verdict, which found them guilty of various offenses. Challenging their conviction and sentence, the five men approached the high court.

According to the prosecution, the victim, a woman residing in Nepal, was en route to Jalandhar to meet her sister. In April 2014, while she was in Delhi to catch a train to Punjab, the incident occurred. At the railway station, she encountered one of the five men who lured her outside under the pretense of getting her food. Instead, she was taken to Rajghat in a van, where four other accomplices were already present, as stated by the prosecution. Subsequently, they transported her to a room where all five men sexually assaulted her. Afterward, she met an individual to whom she shared her ordeal, and the police were notified.

All the accused individuals asserted that they were falsely implicated in the case and that the woman had misidentified them as the perpetrators.

In upholding their conviction, the high court noted that the appellants failed to provide any reason as to why the woman would falsely identify or implicate them while allowing the actual culprits to escape unpunished.

The division bench concluded that the convicts were unable to demonstrate their wrongful identification by the woman. The convicts’ counsel requested a reduction in their sentence, citing their youthfulness at the time of the offense, approximately 25 years old, and their role as the sole breadwinners for their families.

The counsel further argued that the appellants have been in custody for around 10 years, expressing remorse and claiming to have learned their lesson. The defense lawyer implored the court to grant them an opportunity for rehabilitation.