Compromise between victim, rapist can't reduce jail term: SC

Awarding lesser punishment to the convict will show 'stark insensitivity to the need for proportionate punishments', says the apex court

<a href="http://www.shutterstock.com/pic-133683230/stock-photo-scales-of-justice-gavel-and-books.html" target="_blank">Gavel</a> image via Shutterstock
Press Trust of India New Delhi
Last Updated : Aug 27 2013 | 8:14 PM IST
A compromise between a victim of a rape case and the perpetrator should not be a ground for awarding lesser punishment to the convict as this trend exhibits 'stark insensitivity to the need for proportionate punishments', the Supreme Court today ruled.

The court also said religion, race, caste, economic or social status of the accused or the victim, long pendency of the criminal trial, offer of the rapist to marry the victim or the fact that victim is married and settled in life 'cannot be construed as special factors for reducing the sentence prescribed by the statute'.

It cautioned the courts subordinate to it that it would not be 'safe' to reduce sentence of a rape convict or accused in exercise of their discretionary powers under the Indian Penal Code, merely because the victim has settled the matter.

'A compromise entered into between the parties cannot be construed as a leading factor based on which lesser punishment can be awarded. In interest of justice and to avoid unnecessary pressure/harassment to the victim, it would not be safe in considering the compromise arrived at between the parties in rape cases to be a ground for the court to exercise the discretionary power under the proviso of section 376(2) of IPC,' a bench headed by Chief Justice P Sathasivam said.

'The power under the proviso should not be used indiscriminately in a routine, casual and cavalier manner for the reason that an exception clause requires strict interpretation', the bench, also comprising justices Ranjana Prakash Desai and Ranjan Gogoi, warned.

The bench said of late some subordinate and high courts have taken a 'softer view' and reduced the sentence of an accused to that already undergone during trial, when awarding punishment for such a heinous crime, despite their being stringent provisions for rape under the IPC.

'The above trend exhibits stark insensitivity to need for proportionate punishments to be imposed in such cases,' it said.

Proviso of section 376(2) of IPC states 'the court may, for adequate and special reasons to be mentioned in the judgement, impose a sentence of imprisonment of either description for a term of less than ten years.
*Subscribe to Business Standard digital and get complimentary access to The New York Times

Smart Quarterly

₹900

3 Months

₹300/Month

SAVE 25%

Smart Essential

₹2,700

1 Year

₹225/Month

SAVE 46%
*Complimentary New York Times access for the 2nd year will be given after 12 months

Super Saver

₹3,900

2 Years

₹162/Month

Subscribe

Renews automatically, cancel anytime

Here’s what’s included in our digital subscription plans

Exclusive premium stories online

  • Over 30 premium stories daily, handpicked by our editors

Complimentary Access to The New York Times

  • News, Games, Cooking, Audio, Wirecutter & The Athletic

Business Standard Epaper

  • Digital replica of our daily newspaper — with options to read, save, and share

Curated Newsletters

  • Insights on markets, finance, politics, tech, and more delivered to your inbox

Market Analysis & Investment Insights

  • In-depth market analysis & insights with access to The Smart Investor

Archives

  • Repository of articles and publications dating back to 1997

Ad-free Reading

  • Uninterrupted reading experience with no advertisements

Seamless Access Across All Devices

  • Access Business Standard across devices — mobile, tablet, or PC, via web or app

More From This Section

First Published: Aug 27 2013 | 7:15 PM IST

Next Story