Supreme Court of India
RAMESH KUMARversusSTATE OF HARYANA
- Citation
- 2008 INSC 262
- Decided
- 27 February 2008
- Disposal
- Dismissed
- Bench
- S B SINHA
Holding
The life imprisonment sentence for the appellant is upheld as no mitigating circumstances exist.
Summary
Six persons were convicted for gang-raping a married woman under IPC sections 376(2)(g), 506 r/w 149 and 148. The trial court sentenced three, including Ramesh Kumar, to life imprisonment and the other three to ten years; the High Court upheld these convictions and reduced the ten‑year sentences to time already served. Ramesh Kumar appealed before the Supreme Court, seeking a reduction of his life sentence on the ground of poverty and the hardship his aged parents would face. The Court found no material to substantiate any mitigating circumstance and emphasized the heinous nature of the offence, the appellant's active participation, and the need for uniformity with co‑accused already serving life terms. Consequently, the Court dismissed the appeal and confirmed the life sentence.
Issues considered
- Whether the appellant's poverty and his parents' hardship constitute mitigating circumstances warranting a reduction of the life sentence for gang rape
- Whether the Supreme Court can vary the sentence imposed by lower courts in the absence of new material
Legislation cited
- Indian Penal Code, 1860s. 148, s. 149, s. 376(2)(g), s. 506
Subjects
gang rapelife imprisonmentsentencemitigating circumstancesIPCcriminal intimidationriotingappeal
Judgment
[2008] 3 S.C.R. 490
",.
A RAMESH KUMAR
II.
STATE OF HARYANA
(Criminal Appeal No. 398 of 2008)
FEBRUARY 27, 2008
B
(S.B. SINHA AND V.S. SIRPURKAR, JJ.)
~ ....
Sentence/Sentencing - Life imprisonment - For
commission of offence of gang rape of married woman -
c Confirmed by appellate court - Appeal to this court by one of
the accused - Held: In the facts of the case, no mitigating
circumstances found to reduce the sentence - Moreover,
appealing accused cannot be treated differently from others
who are serving the life sentences - Penal Code, 1860 -·
ss.376(2)(g},506 r!w.ss.149 and 148.
D
-1-
Appellant-accused alongwith 5 other accused was
prosecuted ulss.376(2)(g), 506 r/w.ss.149 and 148 IPC for
having gang-raped a married woman. Trial Court
convicted all the accused for the offences charged. Three
E of the accused, including the appellant were sentenced
to life imprisonment and the remaining three, for 10 years
imprisonment. High Court upheld the conviction of all the
accused. The sentence to the accused for life
imprisonment was upheld. However, sentence to the .,.
F accused for 10 years imprisonment was reduced to the
imprisonment already undergone. In appeal to this Court,
by one of the accused (appellant), the Court issued notice
only on the question of sentence.
Dismissing the appeal, the Court
G
HELD: The only plea that was raised before this
Court was that the appellant comes from the poor
background and that his old parents will be deprived of .)..
his company. There is no material placed before the trial
H 490
RAMESH KUMAR v. STATE OF HARYANA 491
[VS. SIRPURKAR, J.]
......,."
and the appellate courts as well as before this Court .in A
support of his poverty. The father of the appellant has been
the Sarpanch for the last 20 years. Again there would be
no question of taking a lenient view particularly because
. of the daring dastardly act on the part of the accused
persons in which the appellant took active part inasmuch B
as out of the six accused persons, he was one of the three
.i> ~ accused who had committed rape on the lady. The lady
was a married person and was tricked to accompany the
accused who obviously had an evil design. The husband
of the lady was lured on the evening of the day of c
occurrence itself, taking advantage of his addiction to
alcohol and it was then that the lady was lured to come
out of the house. Under such circumstances, no leniency
can be shown in the matter of sentence. Out of the three
accused persons only one accused person has come up
_,, D
by way of an appeal. He cannot be treated differently
from others who are serving their life sentence. [Para 9)
[495-D-G; 496-A]
CRIMINALAPPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal
No. 398 of 2008. E
From the Judgment and final order dated 26/4/2006 of
the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in Criminal
Appeal No. 127-08/2001.
.-
---"'
AK. Singh and Nikilesh Ramachandran for the Appellant. F
Rajeev Gaur 'Naseem', Rajesh Ranjan and T.V. George
for the Respondent.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
V.S. SIRPURKAR, J. 1. Leave granted. G
2. This appeal is filed by one of the accused persons who
~ was convicted for commission of offences under Sections 376
(2)(g), 506, read with Sections 149 and 148 of the Indian Penal
Code. Initially as many as six accused persons came to be tried
H
492 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2008] 3 S.C.R.
.,,_
A under Sections 376 (2)(g), 506 read with Sections 149 and 148
IPC before the Sessions Court on the allegation that on the night
intervening 5th and 5th February, 1999 at Village Rajapur they
committed gang-rape on Smt. Nirmala Devi, wife of Lal Chand.
It was further alleged that the accused persons formed an
B unlawful assembly and in prosecution of common object of such
assembly they also criminally intimidated said Nirmala and had
also committed the offence of rioting. The Sessions Judge ~ ...
convicted all the accused persons and sentenced Veer Bhan
(A-1 ), Ajmer Singh (A-3) and Ramesh (A-4) for the offence under
c Section 376 (2)(g) IPC and came to the conclusion that these
three accused persons had gang-raped Nirmala, the prosecutrix.
They were accordingly sentenced to undergo rigorous
imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- each and
in default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous
D imprisonment for three years. It was directed that the fine, if
realized, be paid to the prosecutrix as compensation. The other +-
three accused persons, namely, Bagicha (A-2), Raju (A-5) and
Suraj Bhan @ Surja (A-6) were, although convicted for the
aforementioned offences, sentenced to undergo imprisonment
for 10 years and also to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- each and in
E
default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous
imprisonment for three years. All the accused persons were also
sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for two years for the
offence under Section 506 read with Section 149 IPC and
...
rigorous imprisonment for two years for the offence under
F Section 148 IPC. All the sentences were ordered to run
.
concurrently.
'
3. All the accused persons filed appeal before the High
Court wherein the High Court came to the conclusion that the
G charges of gang-rape and criminal intimidation were proved
against all the appellants. However, the High Court took slightly
lenient view in case of accused Bagicha (A-2), Raju (A-5) and
Suraj Bhan @ Surja (A-6) as they had not indulged in sexual f
intercourse with the prosecutrix. The High Court took into
consideration that they were behind the bars for about four years
H
RAMESH KUMAR v. STATE OF HARYANA 493
~
[V.S. SIRPURKAR, J.]
-"..
and therefore, they were let off with the sentence already A
undergone by them. However, the High Court did not show any
leniency in the case of Veer Bhan (A-1),Ajmer(A-3) and Ramesh
Kumar (A-4) who had committed the act of rape and confirmed
their life sentence.
4. Now out of the abovesaid three accused persons only B
... -( Ramesh (original Accused No.4) has come up before this Court .
This Court condoned the delay in filing the appeal and issued
notice only on the question of sentence.
5. Though a limited notice was issued, the learned counsel c
tried to argue before us for acquittal. According to him the offence
of rape or the more serious offence of gang-rape was not proved
at all. It was also urged that since the appellant has undergone
about nine years of incarceration, the court should take lenient
view in the matter. Learned counsel also pointed out that the
D
-;\- prosecutrix was not injured though she was allegedly raped by
three persons. Learned counsel also urged that the parents of
accused Ramesh are old and have already been deprived of
the company of their son for more than nine years eversince the
accused-appellant is behind the bars.
E
6. Since only a limited notice was issued regarding the
sentence, we do not propose to discuss in details the
prosecution story and the evidence tendered by the prosecution
,-lo\ in its support. However, we must notice certain facts in order to
... appreciate the question of sentence. F
7. The alleged incident appears to have happened on the
night intervening 5th and 5th February, 1999. It is alleged that the
husband of the prosecutrix was addicted to drinking and on
evening of 5th February, 1999, Suraj Bhan@ Surja (A-6) came
to the house of the prosecutrix and took along her husband. G
Again at about 11 p.m. at night her door was knocked and after
opening of the door she saw that Veer Bhan (A-1) was present
~
there and he told her that her husband was lying in a drunken
state and, therefore, she should fetch him back. The prosecutrix
' '
allegedly accompanied Veer Bhan (A-1) who took her near the H
494 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 3 S.C.R.
A engine in the fields of one Mukhtiar Fauji where the other
accused persons, namely, Bagicha (A-2), Surja (A-6), Ramesh
(A-4), Ajmer (A-3) and Raju (A-5) were already present. The
prosecutrix identified each of the accused as they were known
to her. When she asked the whereabouts of her husband she
B was threatened by Veer Bhan (A-1) as she would lose her life if
she were to raise an alarm. She was thereafter relieved of all
her clothes by Veer Bhan (A-1) and then Veer Bhan (A-1 ), Ajmer
(A-3) and Ramesh (A-4) (present appellant) committed rape
on her turn by turn whereas the other three accused merely kept
c on scaring her. It was then she was taken back to her house by
Veer Bhan (A-1) and again she was threatened not to disclose
the incident to anybody, else she would be killed. On the following
day when her husband came home, she disclosed the
occurrence to her husband whereupon she, along with her
parents, went to Police Station Sadar Panipat and lodged the
0
FIR. She was thereafter sent for medical examination and the
examination was conducted by the Lady Doctor. The accused
were eventually arrested on different dates and all of them were
sent for medical examination on 15.2.1999. All of them were
found to be fit for committing sexual intercourse. The clothes of
E the accused were also sent to Forensic Science Laboratory
and it was found that there were semen stains on the Salwar of
the prosecutrix, vaginal swabs and the underwears of accused
Ramesh (the present appellant) and accused Ajmer. The
prosecution led evidence of Nirmala, the prosecutrix, the
F husband of Nirmala, namely, Lal Chand, son of Gian Chand and
Prithvi Singh, the Investigating Officer. Some of the witnesses
were given up while Dr.K.L. Chopra, who had examined the
accused Veer Bhan and Raju was examined. One Dr.S.K.
Gupta was also examined who had examined accused Ramesh
G Kumar, Ajmer, Su raj Bhan and Bagicha. The accused generally
denied their participation in the crime and the present appellant
asserted that on the date of occurrence he was not present in
the Village. It was his evidence that since Radhu Ram, his father
was contesting the elections of Sarpanch for the last 20 years
H and one Diwan Chand was contesting the elections against his
RAMESH KUMAR v. STATE OF HARYANA 495
.
........,
[V.S. SIRPURKAR, J.]
father and since his father was winning the elections throughout, A
the said Diwan Chand was nursing a grudge against the
accused. On the basis of the evidence and more particularly
relying on the evidence of Nirmala, the prosecutrix, all the
accused were convicted.
8. It is not for us now to consider whether the appellants B
• i were rightly convicted since that question does not remain in
view of the fact that this Court had issued only limited notice
regarding the sentence obviously taking the view that there was
nothing wrong with the judgment of conviction recorded by the
Trial as well as the Appellate Courts. The question is only of the c
sentence.
9. In this case the courts below have awarded the
maximum penalty against the three accused being the life
sentence. The only plea that was raised before us was that the
D
-~ appellant Ramesh comes from the poor background and that
his old parents will be deprived of his company. There is no
material placed before the Trial and the Appellate Court as well
as before us in support of his poverty. At any rate we can take
the notice of the fact that the father of the appellant has been the
Sarpanch for the last 20 years. Again there would be no question E
of taking a lenient view particularly because of the daring
dastardly act on the part of the accused persons in which the
,.\(
appellant took active part inasmuch as out of the six accused
" persons, he was one of the three accused who had committed
rape on the lady. We cannot ignore the fact that the lady was a F
married person and was tricked to accompany the accused who
obviously had an evil design. It cannot be forgotten that the
husband of the lady was lured on the evening of the day of
occurrence itself taking advantage of his addiction to alcohol
and it was then that the lady was lured to come out of the house G
for taking back her husband who was lying in a drunken state.
Here was a defenceless married person who was tricked out of
~
her house taking the advantage of the drunkenness of her
husband and then was ravished in a most dastardly manner by
as many as three persons, one of whom was the appellant H
496 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 3 S.C.R.
A before us. Under such circumstances we do not think that any
leniency can be shown in the matter of sentence. It cannot be
forgotten that out of three accused persons only one of the
accused person has come up by way of an appeal. He cannot
be treated differently from others who are serving their life
B sentence.
10. Under the circumstances we do not wish to interfere "
with the judgments of the Trial and Appellate Courts in so far as
the sentence is concerned. The appeal has no merits and is
accordingly dismissed.
c
K.K.T Appeal dismissed.
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.
Try "gang rape"Sign in to search