1. Conviction and sentencing under Sections 376, 418, 420, and 114 of the IPC — Challenge to the legality of the sentence imposed for rape. (Para 1 )
Back
Next 
2025 Supreme(SC) 1415
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
J.B. PARDIWALA AND R. MAHADEVAN, JJ.
Yogesh Jayantilal Bhavasar – Appellant
Versus
State Of Gujarat – Respondent
Criminal Appeal No(s). 838 of 2016 with Crl.A. No. 839/2016 (II-B)
Decided on : 09-01-2025
The Supreme Court highlighted a serious legal error where the trial court imposed a three-year sentence for rape under Section 376 IPC, despite the statutory minimum punishment being seven years, noting that such a sentence contradicts the mandatory minimum prescribed by law.
Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 376, 418, 420, and 114 - Sentencing for rape and related offenses - The trial court erroneously imposed a three-year sentence for rape, minimum per law is seven years. High Court’s dismissal of the appeal did not address this critical error, representing a fundamental oversight in justice. (Paras 2, 4, 5)
(B) Dismissal of Appeal - The State's appeal for enhancement of the sentence was dismissed without addressing the minimum sentence requirement. The High Court's omission in recognizing the sentencing error raised serious concerns. (Paras 3, 5, 7)
Facts of the case:
Accused were convicted for various offenses under IPC, with sentences that were inconsistent with statutory minimums, particularly for rape.
Findings of Court:
The court highlighted the significant error by the trial court and noted the High Court's failure to address it.
Issues: The primary issue was whether the trial court's sentencing below the statutory minimum for rape was permissible.
Ratio Decidendi: The court concluded that the sentencing was fundamentally flawed, mandating a re-examination of the case given the serious nature of the sentencing errors.
Result: The matter is scheduled for further hearing on a specified date.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. State counsel submits that imposing a sentence below the statutory minimum for rape is a serious error going to the root of the matter. (Para 5 )
3. The trial court and High Court failed to ensure the sentence for rape complied with the statutory minimum of seven years under Section 376 IPC. (Para 2 , 4 , 7 )
4. Sentences for criminal offences must adhere to the minimum punishment thresholds prescribed by the governing statute. (Para 2 )
5. The court directed the parties to address the sentencing error and posted the matter for further hearing. (Para 6 , 9 )
6. What is the minimum punishment prescribed for rape under Section 376 of the IPC?
Section 376 of the IPC, including the period prior to the 2013 amendment, mandates a minimum punishment of seven years, which may extend to ten years or life imprisonment. (Para 2 )
7. How does the court view the imposition of a sentence below the statutory minimum?
Such an imposition is regarded as a serious error that goes to the root of the matter, requiring close judicial scrutiny. (Para 5 )
ORDER :
1. The operative part of the judgment and order passed by the trial court reads thus:-
"for the offence punishable u/s.376 and 114 of the I.P.C. the accused No.l Yogesh Jayantilal Bhavsar is ordered to undergo a rigorous imprisonment of 3 (Three) years and to pay a fine of Rs.3,000/- (Rupees Three Thousand only) and in default of payment of fine, he shall undergo a further simple imprisonment of 6 (Six) months.
Further, for the offence punishable u/s.418 and 114 of the I.P.C. the accused No.I Yogesh Jayantilal Bhavsar is ordered to undergo a rigorous imprisonment of 2 (Two) years and to pay a fine of Rs.3,000/- (Rupees Three Thousand only) and in default of payment of fine, he shall undergo a further simple imprisonment of 3 (Three) months.
Further, for the offence punishable u/s.420 and 114 of the I.P.C. the accused No.I Yogesh Jayantilal Bhavsar is ordered to undergo a rigorous imprisonment of 2 (Two) years and to pay a fine of Rs.3,000/- (Rupees Three Thousand only) and in default of payment of fine, he shall undergo a further simple imprisonment of 6 (Six) months.
Whereas, for the offence punishable u/s.376 and 114 of the I.P.C. the accused No.2 Sheelaben\V/o. Goldenbhai @ Ganeshbhai and the accused No.3 Goldenbhai @ Ganeshbhai both, are ordered to undergo a rigorous imprisonment of I (One) year and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/- (Rupees Two Thousand only) each and in default of payment of fine by any of them, they shall undergo a further simple imprisonment of 3 (Three) months.
Further, for the offence punishable u/s.418 and 114 of the I.P.C. the accused No.2 Sheelaben W/o Goldenbhai @ Ganeshbhai and the accused No.3 Goldenbhai @ Ganeshbhai both, are ordered to undergo a rigorous imprisonment of I (One) year and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/- (Rupees Two Thousand only) each and in default of payment of fine by any of them, they shall undergo a further simple imprisonment of 3 (Three) months.
Further, for the offence punishable u/s.420 and 114 of the I.P.C. the accused No.2 Sheelaben W/o Goldenbhai @ Ganeshbhai and the accused No.3 Goldenbhai @ Ganeshbhai both, are ordered to undergo a rigorous imprisonment of 1 (One) year and to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000/- (Rupees Two Thousand only) each and in default of payment of fine by any of them, they shall undergo a further simple imprisonment of 3 (Three) months.
It is hereby ordered that all the sentences awarded to the accused persons shall run concurrently and the period spent by them in the prison shall be given as set off.
It is also hereby ordered that the muddamaal of the instant case shall be disposed of after expiry of the appeal period and each accused herein shall be provided with one copy of this judgment, free of cost."
2. We fail to understand how trial court could have imposed sentence of three years rigorous imprisonment for the offence of rape punishable under Section 376 of the INDIAN PENAL CODE , 1860 (for short "the IPC"). Section 376 of the IPC, even prior to its amendment in 2013, provided that the minimum punishment shall be that of seven years, which may be for life or for a term which may extend to 10 years.
3. We also take notice of the fact that the State had preferred an appeal seeking enhancement of sentence. However, the said appeal was dismissed by the High Court.
4. Even the High Court while dismissing the criminal appeal filed by the appellants herein did not take notice of the fact that how could the trial court have imposed sentence of three years for the offence of rape punishable under Section 376 of the IPC whereas the minimum is seven years.
5. According to Ms. Swati Ghildiyal, the learned counsel appearing for the State of Gujarat, it is a serious error on the part of both, the trial court as well as the High Court going to the root of the matter. However, even according to her, she has been left wondering how this situation can be taken care of the absence of any appeal by the State before this Court.
6. We will have to look into this aspect closely. T
