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
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. sentencing details outlined for accused (Para 1) |
| 2. judicial analysis of sentencing errors (Para 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7) |
| 3. next procedural steps planned (Para 8 , 9) |
ORDER :
1. The operative part of the judgment and order passed by the trial court reads thus:-
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 accord
The court modified the life imprisonment sentence to 18 years for rape, emphasizing the need to consider mitigating circumstances alongside the severity of the crime.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the consideration of appropriate punishment and sentencing in criminal cases, as well as the duty of the court to award proper sentence having rega....
The court reduced the sentence to time already served due to prolonged trial and significant delay since the offence, affirming that such punishment suffices to meet justice.
Conviction under Sections 366 and 447 upheld; conviction under Section 366A set aside due to lack of evidence supporting essential elements.
The court established that the severity of sentencing must consider the personal circumstances of the accused and the duration of the legal proceedings, allowing for modifications to ensure justice i....
The court confirmed the conviction for rape but modified the sentence to 7 and 10 years based on the appellant's circumstances and procedural considerations, ensuring compliance with legal standards.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.