Supreme Court Upholds Life Sentence for Father in Daughter’s Rape Case, Sets Minimum 20-Year Term

Introduction

Date of the Judgment: 25 April 2023

Citation: Criminal Appeal No. 1031 of 2023

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

Can a life sentence truly mean imprisonment for the remainder of one’s natural life, or can it be cut short by remissions? The Supreme Court of India recently grappled with this question in a case involving a father convicted of raping his own nine-year-old daughter. The Court considered whether it has the power to set a minimum term for life imprisonment, even in cases where the death penalty is not an option.

The Supreme Court bench, composed of Justices Abhay S. Oka and Sanjay Kumar, addressed the appeal concerning the sentence imposed on the appellant. The core issue revolved around whether the Court could direct that the life sentence should be for a minimum term of 20 years without the possibility of clemency before that period.

Case Background

The appellant 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 offences), and 506 (criminal intimidation) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The victim was his own nine-year-old daughter. He was sentenced to life imprisonment for both rape and unnatural offences, along with a fine, and two years of rigorous imprisonment for criminal intimidation. The Additional Sessions Judge 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 appealed to the Supreme Court, which limited its review to the question of the sentence.

Timeline

Legal Framework

The Supreme Court examined the following legal provisions:

• Section 376(2)(f) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), prior to its amendment in 2013, stated that rape of a woman under 12 years of age was punishable with rigorous imprisonment for not less than 10 years, which may extend to life imprisonment, and a fine.
  “whoever commits rape on a woman when she is 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 states that unnatural carnal intercourse is punishable with imprisonment for life, or imprisonment up to 10 years, and a fine.
  “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 defines punishments, including imprisonment for life.
• Section 45 of the IPC defines “life”.
• Section 432 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.) deals with the power to suspend or remit sentences.
• Section 433 of the Cr.P.C. deals with the power to commute sentences.
• Article 20(1) of the Constitution of India states 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 commission of the offence.
• Section 433A of the Cr.P.C. mandates that where a sentence of imprisonment for life is imposed on conviction of a person for an offence for which death is one of the punishments provided by law, or where a sentence of death imposed on a person has been commuted under Section 433, such person shall not be released from prison unless he has served at least fourteen years of imprisonment.

The Court also discussed the concept of “imprisonment for life” as interpreted in various judgments, noting that it generally means imprisonment for the remainder of the convict’s natural life, subject to remissions and other legal provisions.

Arguments

The arguments presented before the Supreme Court focused on the legality of the sentence imposed by the Additional Sessions Judge and whether the Court had the power to modify it.

The innovativeness of the argument was in the State’s contention that the Court should consider the amended provisions of Section 376 IPC, even though they were not directly applicable to the case, to understand the legislative intent regarding the severity of punishment for such crimes.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court considered 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?

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:

Judgment

The Supreme Court analyzed the submissions and authorities as follows:

The Court’s view on authorities:

• Gopal Vinayak Godse vs. State of Maharashtra [AIR 1961 SC 600]: The Court cited this case to reiterate that life imprisonment means imprisonment for the remainder of the convict’s natural life.
• Maru Ram vs. Union of India [(1981) 1 SCC 107]: The Court affirmed that a life sentence is nothing less than life-long imprisonment.
• Union of India vs. V. Sriharan alias Murugan and others [(2016) 7 SCC 1]: The Court reiterated that imprisonment for life means imprisonment for the rest of the life of the convict.
• Swamy Shraddananda vs. State of Karnataka [(2008) 13 SCC 767]: The Court relied on this case to support its view that a special category of sentence can be imposed where life imprisonment can be for a term exceeding 14 years and be put beyond application of remission.
• Gouri Shankar vs. State of Punjab [(2021) 3 SCC 380]: The Court referred to this case to highlight that the power to impose life imprisonment for the remainder of the convict’s life is not limited to cases where a death sentence is commuted.
• Shiva Kumar @ Shiva @ Shivamurthy vs. State of Karnataka [Criminal Appeal No. 942 of 2023, decided on 28.03.2023 = 2023 SCC OnLine SC 345]: The Court cited this case to affirm that constitutional courts have the power to impose a modified or fixed-term sentence even in cases where capital punishment is not imposed.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was heavily influenced by the heinous nature of the crime, the betrayal of trust by the father, and the need to ensure that the punishment was not trivialized by liberal remissions. The Court was also mindful of the potential trauma that the victim might face if her father were released prematurely.

Fact:Law Ratio

The Court’s reasoning was a combination of factual considerations (the heinous nature of the crime) and legal considerations (the interpretation of life imprisonment and the power to modify sentences).

The Court rejected any interpretation that would limit its power to modify sentences only to cases involving the death penalty, stating that such an interpretation would be too narrow.

The Court concluded that a life sentence should mean a minimum of 20 years of actual incarceration before the convict can seek remissions. The Court stated:

“The ends of justice would be sufficiently served if 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.”

Key Takeaways

• The Supreme Court has the power to impose a modified sentence of life imprisonment, specifying a term in excess of 14 years, even in cases where the death penalty is not an option.
• This power should be exercised in grave cases where allowing liberal remissions would trivialize the punishment.
• The courts must record cogent reasons for exercising this power.
• Life imprisonment can mean a minimum term of imprisonment, without the possibility of remissions, for a specified period.

Directions

The Supreme Court directed that the life imprisonment of the appellant would be 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. The imposition of fines and imprisonment in default of payment thereof was confirmed.

Development of Law

The Supreme Court clarified that the power to impose a modified sentence of life imprisonment, specifying a term in excess of 14 years, is not limited to cases involving the commutation of a death sentence. This power can be exercised in cases where the maximum punishment is life imprisonment, especially in grave cases. This judgment expands the scope of the Court’s power to ensure that the punishment fits the crime, particularly in heinous cases where liberal remissions would undermine the sentence’s purpose.

Conclusion

In the case of Ravinder Singh vs. The State Govt. of NCT of Delhi, the Supreme Court upheld the life sentence for the appellant, who was convicted of raping his own daughter. The Court modified the sentence to ensure that the appellant serves a minimum of 20 years of actual incarceration before being eligible for remissions. This judgment clarifies that the High Courts and the Supreme Court have the power to impose a modified sentence of life imprisonment, specifying a term in excess of 14 years, even in cases where the death penalty is not an option. This decision underscores the Court’s commitment to ensuring that punishments are proportionate to the gravity of the crime, particularly in heinous cases.