Supreme Court Enhances Punishment for Rape of Minor Daughter: Ravinder Singh vs. State (25 April 2023)

Introduction

Date of the Judgment: 25 April 2023

Citation: 2023 INSC 4262

Judges: Abhay S. Oka, J and Sanjay Kumar, J

Can a father who commits the heinous crime of raping his own minor daughter be allowed to seek early release from prison after serving only 14 years of a life sentence? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this critical question in a case involving a man convicted of raping his 9-year-old daughter. The court considered whether it could impose a modified life sentence, ensuring a longer period of imprisonment to reflect the gravity of the crime. The judgment was delivered by a bench comprising Justices Abhay S. Oka and Sanjay Kumar, with Justice Sanjay Kumar authoring the opinion.

Case Background

The appellant, Ravinder Singh, was convicted by the Additional Sessions Judge (Special Fast Track Court), Dwarka Courts, New Delhi, on 18 February 2013, for offences under Sections 376 (rape), 377 (unnatural sex), and 506 (criminal intimidation) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The victim was his own 9-year-old daughter. He was sentenced on 23 February 2013 to life imprisonment for both the rape and unnatural sex offences, along with a fine of ₹25,000 for each, and rigorous imprisonment for 2 years for criminal intimidation with a fine of ₹10,000. The trial court also directed that the appellant should not be granted clemency before serving at least 20 years in jail.

The Delhi High Court upheld the conviction and sentence on 1 September 2017. The appellant then filed a special leave petition before the Supreme Court, which limited its consideration to the question of the sentence imposed.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The Additional Sessions Judge (Special Fast Track Court), Dwarka Courts, New Delhi, convicted the appellant under Sections 376, 377, and 506 of the IPC and sentenced him to life imprisonment with a direction that he should not be given clemency by the State before he spent at least 20 years in jail. The Delhi High Court upheld the conviction and sentence. The Supreme Court then issued notice limited to the question of sentence.

Legal Framework

The Supreme Court considered the following legal provisions:

• Section 376(2)(f) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) (prior to 2013 amendment): This section stated that whoever commits rape on a woman under 12 years of age shall be punished with rigorous imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than 10 years but which may be for life and shall also be liable to fine.
• Section 377 of the IPC: This section states that whoever voluntarily has carnal intercourse against the order of nature with any man, woman or animal shall be punished with imprisonment for life, or with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to 10 years, and shall also be liable to fine.
• Section 53 of the IPC: This section defines the punishments to which offenders are liable under the provisions of the code.
• Section 45 of the IPC: This section defines ‘life’ to mean the life of a human being, unless the contrary appears from the context.
• Section 432 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC): This section deals with the power to suspend or remit sentences.
• Section 433 of the CrPC: This section deals with the power to commute sentences.
• Article 72 of the Constitution of India: This article deals with the power of the President to grant pardons, etc., and to suspend, remit or commute sentences in certain cases.
• Article 161 of the Constitution of India: This article deals with the power of the Governor of a State to grant pardons, etc., and to suspend, remit or commute sentences in certain cases.
• Article 20(1) of the Constitution of India: This article provides that no person shall be subjected to a penalty greater than that which might have been inflicted under the law in force at the time of the commission of the offence.

The Court also discussed the concept of life imprisonment, clarifying that it generally means imprisonment for the rest of the convict’s natural life, subject to the right to claim remission under Articles 72 and 161 of the Constitution and under Section 432 of the CrPC.

Arguments

Appellant’s Arguments:

• The appellant’s counsel argued that the trial court had no power to impose a restriction on the term of life imprisonment by directing that the appellant should not be given clemency until he spent at least 20 years in jail.
• The counsel contended that such power could only be exercised by the High Courts or the Supreme Court, not by the trial court.
• The counsel relied on the legal position that life imprisonment means imprisonment for the rest of the natural life of the prisoner, subject to remissions.

State’s Arguments:

• The State’s counsel argued for upholding the sentence, emphasizing the heinous nature of the crime.
• The counsel highlighted the need for a punishment that reflects the gravity of the offense, given that the victim was the appellant’s own daughter.
• The State also argued that the court has the power to impose a modified sentence, specifying a minimum term of imprisonment, to prevent the offender from seeking early release.

Innovativeness of the argument: The State’s argument that the court has the power to impose a modified sentence, specifying a minimum term of imprisonment, to prevent the offender from seeking early release, is a novel argument which was accepted by the court.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court framed the following issue:

1. Whether the High Courts and the Supreme Court have the power to impose a modified punishment, specifying the term of life imprisonment in excess of 14 years, even in cases where the death sentence is not imposed and the maximum punishment prescribed is life imprisonment with nothing further?

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

The following table demonstrates as to how the Court decided the issues

Authorities

The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:

Judgment

How each submission made by the Parties was treated by the Court?

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• The Court followed the ratio in Gopal Vinayak Godse Vs. State of Maharashtra, [AIR 1961 SC 600], Maru Ram Vs. Union of India, [(1981) 1 SCC 107], and Union of India Vs. V. Sriharan alias Murugan and others, [(2016) 7 SCC 1] which stated that life imprisonment means imprisonment for the rest of the convict’s natural life.
• The Court relied on Swamy Shraddananda Vs. State of Karnataka, [(2008) 13 SCC 767], to emphasize that the Court can impose a term in excess of 14 years.
• The Court also relied on Gouri Shankar Vs. State of Punjab, [(2021) 3 SCC 380], to hold that the sentence of imprisonment for life should mean till the remainder of the natural life of the convict.
• The Court followed Shiva Kumar @ Shiva @ Shivamurthy Vs. State of Karnataka, [Criminal Appeal No. 942 of 2023, decided on 28.03.2023 = 2023 SCC OnLine SC 345], to hold that Constitutional Courts can impose a modified or fixed-term sentence.
• The Court relied on Madan Gopal Kakkad Vs. Naval Dubey and another, [(1992) 3 SCC 204], to emphasize the need to use the sword of justice with utmost severity if the gravity of the offence so demands.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court was deeply concerned about the heinous nature of the crime committed by the appellant, who had raped his own minor daughter. The Court emphasized that the trust and faith a young girl places in her father were completely violated by his actions. The Court also noted that allowing the appellant to seek early release after serving only 14 years would trivialize the punishment and could cause further trauma to the victim. The Court was also mindful of the fact that the lawmakers deemed it fit and appropriate to provide for more stringent punishment for the offence of rape in certain circumstances and made it clear that when imprisonment for life is imposed upon the perpetrator of the offence in those situations, such a perpetrator would be liable to remain in prison for the remainder of his natural life.

Fact:Law Ratio:

Logical Reasoning:

The Court reasoned that while life imprisonment generally means imprisonment for the rest of one’s natural life, the Court has the power to specify a minimum term in grave cases to prevent the trivialization of punishment. The Court considered the heinous nature of the crime, the violation of trust, and the need to protect the victim from further trauma.

The Court also considered the argument that the power to impose a modified sentence was only available in cases where the death sentence was commuted to life imprisonment. The court rejected this argument and held that the power to impose a modified sentence is not limited to such cases. The court also considered the possibility of allowing the appellant to seek early release after serving only 14 years. The court rejected this argument and held that such a release would trivialize the punishment.

The Court stated:

• “…the Court would take recourse to this expanded option primarily because, in the facts of the case, the sentence of 14 years’ imprisonment would amount to no punishment at all.”
• “…when life imprisonment means the whole life span of the person convicted, it cannot be said that the Court which is empowered to impose the said punishment cannot specify the period up to which the said sentence of life should remain, befitting the nature of the crime committed.”
• “Even in such cases, it would be a parody of justice to allow the convicts so sentenced to avail the benefit of remissions and the like, liberally conferred by the State, and cut short the length of their life sentence to a mere 14 years.”

The Court concluded that a minimum of 20 years of actual incarceration was necessary to serve the ends of justice in this case.

Key Takeaways

• The Supreme Court has the power to impose a modified life sentence, specifying a minimum term of imprisonment beyond 14 years, even when the law does not prescribe a death sentence for the offense.
• This power is to be exercised in grave cases where allowing a convict to seek release after 14 years would trivialize the punishment.
• The Court emphasized that life imprisonment, while generally for the rest of one’s natural life, can be modified by the High Courts and the Supreme Court to ensure justice is served, especially in cases involving heinous crimes.
• The Court also emphasized that the trial courts do not have the power to impose such restrictions.

Directions

The Supreme Court directed that the life imprisonment of the appellant is for a minimum of 20 years of actual incarceration before he can seek remissions under the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, or any other enacted law.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that the High Courts and the Supreme Court have the power to impose a modified life sentence, specifying a minimum term of imprisonment beyond 14 years, even when the law does not prescribe a death sentence for the offense. This clarifies and expands the scope of the power of the High Courts and the Supreme Court to impose modified sentences, which was previously primarily associated with cases where a death sentence was commuted to life imprisonment. This judgment also clarifies that the trial courts do not have the power to impose such restrictions. This is a change in the previous position of law.

Conclusion

In the case of Ravinder Singh vs. The State Govt. of NCT of Delhi, the Supreme Court enhanced the punishment for a man convicted of raping his own minor daughter. The Court held that it has the power to impose a modified life sentence, specifying a minimum term of 20 years of actual incarceration, even though the law did not prescribe a death sentence for the offense. This decision underscores the Court’s commitment to ensuring that punishments reflect the gravity of the crime, especially in cases involving heinous offenses against vulnerable victims. The judgment clarifies the powers of the High Courts and the Supreme Court in imposing sentences and ensures that life sentences are not trivialized by liberal remissions.