Source: Supreme Court

Why in News?

Recently, a bench of Justices C T Ravikumar and Rajesh Bindal sentenced an accused of rape to an imprisonment for a term of 30 years.

• The Supreme Court gave this sentence in the case of Bhaggi @ Bhagirath @ Naran v. The State of Madhya Pradesh.

What was the Background of Bhaggi @ Bhagirath @ Naran v. The State of Madhya Pradesh Case?

• On 21^st February 2018, the complainant Munni Bai (Prosecution Witness-8) who is the grandmother of the victim lodged a report that her granddaughter X, who was examined as PW-1, aged 7 years was kidnapped and raped by the petitioner-convict.
• After the trial, the Trial Court found that the prosecution had succeeded in bringing damning evidence to establish that the victim, aged 7 years was taken to temple by the petitioner-convict and there upon making her and himself nude he committed rape.
• The oral testimonies of the prosecution witnesses (PWs-1, 2 and 14) on the culpability of the convict got credence from the medical evidence unerringly pointing to his guilt.
• The consequential conviction brought him capital sentence.
• Though, the petitioner was also convicted under Section 376 (2) (i) of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) and under Sections 3/4, Sections 5(d)/6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO Act) taking note of his conviction under Section 376 AB, IPC, no separate sentences were awarded for the aforesaid offences by the trial Court.
• The High Court commuted the death sentence into imprisonment for life though another alternative punishment was also possible which is rigorous imprisonment for a term not less than 20 years with fine.
• Hence, the petitioner approached SC against the order of HC.

What was the Court’s Observation?

• The SC held that “It is noted that if the victim is religious, every visit to any temple may hark back to her the unfortunate, barbaric action to which she was subjected. So also, the incident may haunt her and adversely impact her future married life”.
  • The petitioner-convict shall not be released from jail before completion of an actual sentence of 30 years.

What were the Landmark Cases Cited in this Case?

• Mulla v. State of U.P (2010);
  • SC held that "It is open to the sentencing court to prescribe the length of incarceration. This is especially true in cases where death sentence has been replaced by life imprisonment”.
• Union of India v. V. Sriharan alias Murugan and Ors. (2016):
  • SC held that, in cases where death penalty or life imprisonment is imposed by the trial court and confirmed by the Division Bench of the HC, the convict may appeal to this Court.
  • The HC, empowered by IPC, can modify the punishment to life imprisonment for a specified period, based on the gravity of the crime and judicial discretion.
• Shiva Kumar @ Shiva @ Shivamurthy v. State of Karnataka (2023):
  • SC held that, even in a case where capital punishment is not imposed or is not proposed, the Constitutional Courts can always exercise the power of imposing a modified or fixed-term sentence by directing that a life sentence, as contemplated by “secondly” in Section 53 of the IPC, shall be of a fixed period of more than fourteen years, for example, of twenty years, thirty years and so on.
  • The fixed punishment cannot be for a period less than 14 years in view of the mandate of Section 433A of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC).