Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
R. Banumathi, S. Abdul Nazeer, JJ.
Thongam Tarun Singh – Appellant
Versus
The State of Manipur – Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 805 of 2019 (@ Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No.6779 of 2018) With Criminal Appeal No. 806 of 2019 (@ Special Leave Petition (Criminal)No.7477 of 2018)
Decided On : 30-04-2019
(a) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Section 376(2)(g) r/w section 464, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - No charges framed u/s 376(2)(g) - Evidence establishing rape by both accused - Charges framed under scion 376 - Held, no serious prejudice has been caused to appellants. (Para 9)
(b) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Section 376 - Sentence - Minimum of seven years - No discretion to reduce the sentence - Prior to amendment, 2013 minimum sentence being not less than ten years, but court could award lesser sentence for adequate and special reasons - Instantly appellants awarded fifteen years u/s 376 and ten years u/s 120-B - Appellants having no criminal antecedents - They are young - Hailing from backward area - Conduct in jail very good - Sentence reduced to eight years on both counts. (Para 10, 12)
Facts of the case:
The appellants were convicted under Section 376(2)(g) IPC for committing gang rape upon the victim and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of fifteen years with a fine of Rs.25,000/-. The appellants were also convicted for the offence under Section 120-B IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of ten years both the sentences were to run concurrently.
The High Court affirmed the conviction and the sentence.
Finding of the Court:
There is no error in conviction.
Result: Appeals partly allowed.
JUDGMENT :
R.BANUMATHI, J.
Leave granted.
2. These appeals arise out of the judgment dated 30.04.2018 passed by the High Court of Manipur at Imphal in Criminal Jail Appeal No. 2 of 2014 and Criminal (Jail) Appeal No. 3 of 2014 in and by which the High Court has affirmed the conviction of the appellants under Section 376(2)(g) IPC for committing the gang rape upon the victim and, accordingly, they were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of fifteen years with a fine of Rs.25,000/-. The appellants were also convicted for the offence under Section 120-B IPC and they were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of ten years both the sentences were to run concurrently.
3. Briefly stated the case of prosecution: Two appellants were close friends. On 20.10.2012 accused no. 1 said to have picked up the victim (PW-5) aged about sixteen years and took her in a Maruti Car and taken to a restaurant along with his friend – accused no.2. Further, case of prosecution is that the appellants have forcibly given a soft drink mixed with intoxicant to the victim and after taking the said drink, she fell unconscious. Thereafter the appellants are said to have committed rape on her. The allegation is that when the victim regained her senses, she found that she was raped by accused no. 1 and also by accused no. 2 and, thereafter, she was dropped off. Complaint was lodged by the mother of the victim on the next day on 21.10.2012, based on which FIR was registered under Sections 376 IPC and 120-B IPC. On completion of the investigation, charge-sheet was filed and the appellants were charged for the offences under Section 376 and Section 120-B IPC.
4. Upon consideration of the oral evidence of PW-5 (Victim) and the medical evidence and other evidence, the Trial Court convicted the appellant no. 1 and also appellant no. 2 under Section 120B IPC and Section 376(2)(g) IPC. For the conviction under Section 120B IPC, the appellants were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of ten years with a fine of Rs.10,000/- each with default clause. For the conviction under Section 376 (2)(g) IPC, the appellants were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 15 years with a fine of Rs.25,000/- each with default clause. Both the sentences were ordered to be run concurrently. The conviction of the appellants and the sentence of imprisonment imposed on each of them were affirmed by the High Court as aforesaid in para (1). Being aggrieved, the appellants have preferred these appeals.
5. By the orders dated 27th August, 2018 and 17th September, 2018 this Court held that this Court is not inclined to interfere with the conviction of the appellants under Section 376(2)(g) IPC and Section 120-B IPC. Notice was issued only limited to the quantum of sentence.
6. We have heard Mr. R.Basant, learned senior counsel and Mr. Maibam Nabaghanashyam Singh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants as well as Mr. Leishangthem Roshmani, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent-State of Manipur.
7. The main contention of the learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants is that charges were not framed against the appellants for the gang rape under Section 376(2)(g)IPC and while so the Trial Court as well as the High court erred in convicting the appellants under Section 376(2)(g) IPC. Learned senior counsel further submitted that without framing the charges for grievous offence, namely, Section 376(2)(g) IPC, the Court ought not to have convicted under Section 376(2)(g) IPC and urged us to keep this aspect in considering the quantum of sentence.
8. By perusal of the charges framed against the accused, it clearly shows that charges were framed against the accused under Section 376 IPC read with Section 120B IPC. In this regard, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent -State of Manipur has drawn our attention to Section 464 Cr.P.C. and submitted that no finding, sentence or or
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
