Back
ILESH J. VORA, S. V. PINTO
STATE OF GUJARAT – Appellant
Versus
SHERUBILAL MUBARAKBHAI – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
ILESH J. VORA, J.
1. This enhancement appeal is being filed by the State of Gujarat under Section 377 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 against the order of sentence dated 06.02.2008 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Bhavnagar, Camp at Mahua in Sessions Case No. 22 of 1996, wherein, the respondent-original accused came to be tried for offences punishable under Sections 452, 376 and 506(2) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (old) (‘IPC’ for short). The trial Court, after appreciation of the evidence, convicted the respondent under Sections 452 and 376 of the IPC and he was sentenced as under:
| Sections of IPC | Punishment | Fine | In default |
| 452 | RI for three years | Rs. 1,000/- | SI for one month |
| 376 | RI for three years | Rs. 1,000/- | SI for one month |
The sentences were to run concurrently.
2. The facts and circumstances, giving rise to this appeal are that, the respondent accused Sherubilal Mubarakbhai was tried by the Sessions Court for the offence of rape. The victim, aged about 20 years, was at relevant time, deaf, mute and mentally unstable. On 29.05.1995, she was alone at h
The absence of direct evidence and the victim's communication difficulties justified the trial Court's lenient sentence for rape, which was upheld by the appellate court.
The Appellate Court should not interfere with the trial Court's sentencing unless the sentence is manifestly inadequate or perverse.
The judgment established the principle that the testimony of a victim of sexual assault does not always require corroboration and emphasized the need for sensitivity and proportionality in sentencing....
In an offence of gang rape reason for awarding sentence less than the minimum prescribed of 10 years that accused infact had not committed sexual assault is not adequate and special reason to justify....
Court upheld conviction for attempted sexual assault based on corroborative testimony despite victim's disabilities, emphasizing reliability of witness accounts.
The appellate court upheld the trial court's discretion in sentencing, emphasizing that enhancement of sentences requires strong justification, which was not present in this case.
The appellate court upheld the trial court's discretion in sentencing, affirming that the imposed 7-year sentence was adequate given the circumstances of the robbery and the use of a firearm.
Court affirmed conviction and sentence despite the appellant's death, highlighting victim’s evidence sufficiency to establish guilt.
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
