Supreme Court Reduces Sentence in Gang Rape Case Due to Lack of Specific Charge: Thongam Tarun Singh vs. State of Manipur (2019)

Date of the Judgment: 30th April, 2019
Citation: 2019 INSC 408
Judges: R. Banumathi, J., S. Abdul Nazeer, J.
Can a conviction for gang rape under Section 376(2)(g) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) stand if the charge sheet did not specifically mention this section? The Supreme Court of India addressed this crucial question in the case of Thongam Tarun Singh vs. State of Manipur. The court examined whether the lack of a specific charge under Section 376(2)(g) of the IPC would invalidate the conviction. The bench comprised Justices R. Banumathi and S. Abdul Nazeer, with the judgment authored by Justice R. Banumathi.

Case Background

The case involves two close friends, the appellants, who were accused of gang raping a sixteen-year-old girl (PW-5). On October 20, 2012, the first appellant allegedly picked up the victim and took her to a restaurant with the second appellant. The prosecution stated that the appellants forcibly gave the victim a soft drink mixed with an intoxicant, causing her to lose consciousness. The appellants then allegedly raped her. When she regained consciousness, she realized she had been raped by both men. The victim was then dropped off, and her mother filed a complaint the next day, October 21, 2012, leading to the registration of an FIR under Sections 376 (rape) and 120-B (criminal conspiracy) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).

Course of Proceedings

The Trial Court convicted both appellants under Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Section 376(2)(g) of the IPC, sentencing them to ten years of rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 10,000 each for the former and fifteen years of rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 25,000 each for the latter, with both sentences running concurrently. The High Court of Manipur affirmed this conviction and sentence. The Supreme Court initially declined to interfere with the conviction but issued notice limited to the quantum of sentence.

Legal Framework

The case primarily revolves around Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), which deals with the punishment for rape, and Section 120B of the IPC, which deals with criminal conspiracy. Explanation 1 to Section 376 of the IPC (prior to the 2013 Amendment Act) defines gang rape:

“Where a woman is raped by one or more in a group of persons acting in furtherance of their common intention, each of the persons shall be deemed to have committed gang rape within the meaning of this sub-section.”

The court also considered Section 464 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.), which states that a court’s decision should not be deemed invalid merely because a charge was not framed unless a failure of justice has occurred.

The Supreme Court also noted the amendments to Section 376 of the IPC by Act 13 of 2013, which introduced a minimum sentence of seven years for rape, extendable to life imprisonment, and removed the court’s discretion to reduce the sentence below this minimum. Prior to this amendment, Section 376(2)(g) of the IPC provided for a minimum of ten years imprisonment, extendable to life, but allowed the court to impose a lesser sentence for adequate and special reasons.

Arguments

The appellants argued that they were not specifically charged under Section 376(2)(g) of the IPC for gang rape. They contended that convicting them under this section without a specific charge was a miscarriage of justice. The appellants’ counsel urged the court to consider this aspect when determining the quantum of sentence.

The State of Manipur argued that the evidence clearly showed that the victim was raped by both appellants, thus constituting gang rape as defined in Explanation 1 to Section 376 of the IPC. The state also cited Section 464 of the Cr.P.C., arguing that the absence of a specific charge under Section 376(2)(g) of the IPC should not invalidate the conviction unless it caused a failure of justice.

The innovativeness of the argument made by the appellant was that they tried to use a procedural lapse to get the conviction set aside.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court considered the following issue:

1. Whether the conviction of the appellants under Section 376(2)(g) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) was valid, given that the charge sheet did not specifically mention this section.
2. Whether there are adequate and special reasons warranting exercise of discretion to reduce the sentence of imprisonment.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

The Court considered the following legal provisions:

• Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) – Punishment for rape.
• Explanation 1 to Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) – Definition of gang rape.
• Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) – Criminal conspiracy.
• Section 464 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.) – Effect of omission to frame, or error in charge.

Judgment

The Court observed that the evidence of the victim (PW-5) and the owner of the hotel (PW-3) clearly established that the victim was subjected to rape by both the appellants. The court held that even though a specific charge under Section 376(2)(g) of the IPC was not framed, the conviction under this section was valid. The court relied on Section 464 of the Cr.P.C., stating that no serious prejudice was caused to the appellants due to the lack of specific charge.

Regarding the quantum of sentence, the court noted the amendments to Section 376 of the IPC in 2013, which increased the minimum sentence for rape. However, the court considered the fact that the appellants had no criminal antecedents, were young at the time of the incident, and had shown good conduct in jail.

The court reduced the sentence of imprisonment for the conviction under Section 376(2)(g) of the IPC from fifteen years to eight years and for the conviction under Section 120B of the IPC from ten years to eight years with both sentences to run concurrently.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the clear evidence of gang rape and the absence of any serious prejudice to the appellants due to the lack of a specific charge under Section 376(2)(g) of the IPC. The court also considered the appellants’ lack of criminal history and their good conduct in jail, which led to the reduction of their sentence.

Logical Reasoning

The Court considered the argument that the lack of specific charge under Section 376(2)(g) of the IPC should invalidate the conviction. However, it rejected this argument, stating that the evidence clearly showed that the appellants had committed gang rape. The court also considered the argument that the lack of specific charge should be considered while determining the quantum of sentence. While it did not set aside the conviction, it did reduce the sentence considering the appellants’ background and conduct in jail.

The court quoted from the judgment:

• “From the evidence of PW-5 and the materials adduced by the prosecution, it is clearly brought in evidence that the victim was subjected to rape both by accused no. 1 as well as accused no. 2.”
• “Considering the evidence of PW-5 and other evidences, in our considered view, even though no charge was framed under Section 376(2)(g)IPC, the conviction of the appellants under Section 376(2)(g) IPC cannot be faulted.”
• “Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and that the appellants have no criminal antecedents and also the conduct of the appellants in the Jail (post conviction), the sentence of imprisonment of fifteen years (for the conviction under Section 376(2) (g) IPC) and sentence of imprisonment of ten years (for the conviction under Section 120B IPC) are reduced to eight years.”

Key Takeaways

• A conviction for gang rape under Section 376(2)(g) of the IPC can be upheld even if the charge sheet does not specifically mention this section, provided the evidence clearly establishes the commission of the offense and no serious prejudice is caused to the accused.
• Section 464 of the Cr.P.C. states that a court’s decision should not be deemed invalid merely because a charge was not framed unless a failure of justice has occurred.
• The court may reduce the sentence of imprisonment based on factors such as the lack of criminal antecedents and good conduct in jail.

Directions

The sentence of imprisonment imposed upon each of the appellants is reduced to eight years with both sentences to run concurrently.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that a conviction under Section 376(2)(g) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) can be upheld even if the charge sheet does not specifically mention this section, provided the evidence clearly establishes the commission of the offense and no serious prejudice is caused to the accused. This judgment clarifies that the absence of a specific charge does not automatically invalidate a conviction if the facts and evidence support the offense, and if no failure of justice has occurred.

Conclusion

In Thongam Tarun Singh vs. State of Manipur, the Supreme Court upheld the conviction of the appellants for gang rape under Section 376(2)(g) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), even though the charge sheet did not specifically mention this section. The court reduced the sentence of imprisonment from fifteen years to eight years, considering the appellants’ lack of criminal antecedents and good conduct in jail. The judgment emphasizes that a conviction can be valid if the evidence clearly supports the offense and no serious prejudice is caused to the accused, even if there are procedural lapses.

Category:

• Indian Penal Code, 1860
  • Section 376, Indian Penal Code, 1860
  • Section 120B, Indian Penal Code, 1860
• Criminal Procedure Code, 1973
  • Section 464, Criminal Procedure Code, 1973
• Criminal Law
  • Gang Rape
  • Sentencing
  • Criminal Conspiracy

FAQ

Q: Can someone be convicted of gang rape if the charge sheet doesn’t specifically mention it?
A: Yes, according to the Supreme Court, a conviction for gang rape can be valid even if the charge sheet doesn’t specifically mention Section 376(2)(g) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), as long as the evidence clearly shows the offense occurred and no serious injustice was caused to the accused.

Q: What is Section 464 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.)?
A: Section 464 of the Cr.P.C. states that a court’s decision should not be considered invalid just because a charge was not framed correctly, unless this error has caused a failure of justice.

Q: How does the court decide on the sentence in a rape case?
A: The court considers the severity of the crime as well as the background of the accused, including whether they have any past criminal history and their conduct in jail. The court may reduce the sentence if there are adequate and special reasons.

Q: What does the term ‘gang rape’ mean under Indian law?
A: Gang rape, as defined in Explanation 1 to Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), occurs when a woman is raped by one or more persons acting together with a common intention.

Q: What was the final decision in this case?
A: The Supreme Court upheld the conviction of the appellants for gang rape but reduced their sentence to eight years of imprisonment.