A lot of criticism against me has appeared on the net regarding the judgment in Baldev Singh vs. State of Punjab (2011) 13 S.C.C. 705: A.I.R. 2011 S.C. 1231 (which can be seen online) in which the sentence of imprisonment of the 3 gangrape accused was reduced. Hence an explanation is called for, which is given below :
(1) It was a decision of a bench of two Judges, one of whom was a lady Judge (Justice Gyan Sudha Mishra), and not my judgment alone.
(2) Section 376(2)(g) of the Indian Penal Code says that the minimum sentence in a case of gangrape shall be 10 years. However, there is a proviso to that provision which says that for special and adequate reasons the Court can give lesser punishment.
(3) The trial Court and High Court had awarded 10 years sentence to the 3 accused. We took recourse to the proviso and reduced the sentence of imprisonment to the 3 and a half years which the accused had already served, and a fine of 1.5 lacs (Rs 50,000 to be paid by each accused) which had to be paid to the woman victim.
(4) The reasons for doing so were these :
(a) The parties had themselves filed a joint application before us that they had compromised the matter, and the victim would be satisfied if instead of making the accused undergo further imprisonment some compensation was awarded to her.
(b) The incident was of the year 1997 i.e. about 15 years old, and both the accused and the victim had got married (not to each other). The victim was poor and had 2 children, and by getting some money she could better look after her children.
(c) It was not that the accused had not suffered any imprisonment. They had already undergone 3 and a half years imprisonment. Making them undergo further imprisonment would not help the victim, whereas by giving her some money we could help her feed her children
(1) It was a decision of a bench of two Judges, one of whom was a lady Judge (Justice Gyan Sudha Mishra), and not my judgment alone.
(2) Section 376(2)(g) of the Indian Penal Code says that the minimum sentence in a case of gangrape shall be 10 years. However, there is a proviso to that provision which says that for special and adequate reasons the Court can give lesser punishment.
(3) The trial Court and High Court had awarded 10 years sentence to the 3 accused. We took recourse to the proviso and reduced the sentence of imprisonment to the 3 and a half years which the accused had already served, and a fine of 1.5 lacs (Rs 50,000 to be paid by each accused) which had to be paid to the woman victim.
(4) The reasons for doing so were these :
(a) The parties had themselves filed a joint application before us that they had compromised the matter, and the victim would be satisfied if instead of making the accused undergo further imprisonment some compensation was awarded to her.
(b) The incident was of the year 1997 i.e. about 15 years old, and both the accused and the victim had got married (not to each other). The victim was poor and had 2 children, and by getting some money she could better look after her children.
(c) It was not that the accused had not suffered any imprisonment. They had already undergone 3 and a half years imprisonment. Making them undergo further imprisonment would not help the victim, whereas by giving her some money we could help her feed her children
