The Bombay High Court on Thursday commuted death sentence of three men convicted in the 2013 Shakti mills gang rape case to life imprisonment..The three men had been convicted of gang-raping a 23-year-old photo journalist in the Shakti mills area of Mumbai, and had been awarded death penalty by a Sessions Court on the ground they were repeat offenders .A Bench of Justices SS Jadhav and PK Chavan upheld the conviction by the Sessions Court but reduced the sentence to rigorous imprisonment for life. "Constitutional court cannot award punishment based on public opinion. While setting aside the death sentence, it may be said that we took counter majority view but constitutional court is to follow the procedure," the High Court held..The Court while reading its 108-page judgment observed that every case of rape is a heinous offence, affects supreme honour of the victim and affects public conscience and the present case shocked the public conscience.The bench also observed that Section 376E of the Indian Penal Code was not a substantive offence but merely prescribed punishment. In light of this, the statute had neither prescribed mandatory death penalty nor stated that the accused deserved nothing less than death penalty. .They accused will not be entitled to parole or furlough, the Court added.The Court was hearing the reference plea filed by Maharashtra government for confirmation of death sentence against Vijay Jadhav, Mohammed Kasim Bengali, Mohammed Salim Ansari who had been tried for gang rape of the photo journalist in 2013.The convicts themselves had not filed any appeal against their conviction or sentence. .A year later, in March 2014, Jadhav, Bengali and Ansari were convicted by the Mumbai Sessions Court under Sections 354B (assault), 377 (unnatural offence) and 376D (gang rape) of the Indian Penal Code.While Khan was sentenced to life imprisonment, the juvenile was sent to a correctional facility after he was convicted by the Juvenile Justice Board..The trio was also awarded with the death sentence by the then Principal Sessions Judge Shalini Phansalkar Joshi after prosecution invoked Section 376E (repeated offenders) of the IPC.They had been convicted in another rape case also committed in the same area on a 19-year-old operator..The trials in both cases went on simultaneously. The three men had been convicted in both cases on the same day. However, the arguments on the quantum of sentence took place before the Sessions Court on the next day, when the prosecution highlighted the conviction which took place in the other case, based on which the trio was awarded death sentence..Ansari and Jadhav had earlier approached the High Court challenging the constitutional validity of Section 376E which was upheld by the High Court in 2019.Section 376E was added through the Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, 2013, introduced after the gruesome Nirbhaya gang rape case of Delhi in 2012.The Section provides for capital punishment to a repeat offender post conviction for offences punishable under Sections 376, 376A and 376D..In 2021, seven years after being sentenced to death, High Court started hearing the plea by Maharashtra government seeking confirmation of the death sentence.Advocates Yug Mohit Chaudhry and Payoshi Roy argued that the sentence had been handed out based on incorrect application of Section 376E.They submitted that the Section 376E would apply only once a convict has undergone sentence and after an opportunity of reformation has been given to the repeated offender. This did not happen in the present case, Chaudhry submitted.Chaudhry further submitted that the trial had not been conducted fairly, as the convicts had not been given a fair opportunity to make submissions on framing of charge under Section 376E and the quantum of sentence.Chaudhry highlighted their impoverished backgrounds and soci-economic conditions which he claimed, prompted them to become violent and commit such an offence.That they were young and had never been subject to any correctional influence earlier in life, it was contended It was, therefore, prayed that the sentence be commuted..The State government on the other hand vehemently opposed the contentions stating that the order of Sessions judge was a deterrent order and was justified. They prayed for the death sentence to be confirmed..[Read judgment]
The Bombay High Court on Thursday commuted death sentence of three men convicted in the 2013 Shakti mills gang rape case to life imprisonment..The three men had been convicted of gang-raping a 23-year-old photo journalist in the Shakti mills area of Mumbai, and had been awarded death penalty by a Sessions Court on the ground they were repeat offenders .A Bench of Justices SS Jadhav and PK Chavan upheld the conviction by the Sessions Court but reduced the sentence to rigorous imprisonment for life. "Constitutional court cannot award punishment based on public opinion. While setting aside the death sentence, it may be said that we took counter majority view but constitutional court is to follow the procedure," the High Court held..The Court while reading its 108-page judgment observed that every case of rape is a heinous offence, affects supreme honour of the victim and affects public conscience and the present case shocked the public conscience.The bench also observed that Section 376E of the Indian Penal Code was not a substantive offence but merely prescribed punishment. In light of this, the statute had neither prescribed mandatory death penalty nor stated that the accused deserved nothing less than death penalty. .They accused will not be entitled to parole or furlough, the Court added.The Court was hearing the reference plea filed by Maharashtra government for confirmation of death sentence against Vijay Jadhav, Mohammed Kasim Bengali, Mohammed Salim Ansari who had been tried for gang rape of the photo journalist in 2013.The convicts themselves had not filed any appeal against their conviction or sentence. .A year later, in March 2014, Jadhav, Bengali and Ansari were convicted by the Mumbai Sessions Court under Sections 354B (assault), 377 (unnatural offence) and 376D (gang rape) of the Indian Penal Code.While Khan was sentenced to life imprisonment, the juvenile was sent to a correctional facility after he was convicted by the Juvenile Justice Board..The trio was also awarded with the death sentence by the then Principal Sessions Judge Shalini Phansalkar Joshi after prosecution invoked Section 376E (repeated offenders) of the IPC.They had been convicted in another rape case also committed in the same area on a 19-year-old operator..The trials in both cases went on simultaneously. The three men had been convicted in both cases on the same day. However, the arguments on the quantum of sentence took place before the Sessions Court on the next day, when the prosecution highlighted the conviction which took place in the other case, based on which the trio was awarded death sentence..Ansari and Jadhav had earlier approached the High Court challenging the constitutional validity of Section 376E which was upheld by the High Court in 2019.Section 376E was added through the Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, 2013, introduced after the gruesome Nirbhaya gang rape case of Delhi in 2012.The Section provides for capital punishment to a repeat offender post conviction for offences punishable under Sections 376, 376A and 376D..In 2021, seven years after being sentenced to death, High Court started hearing the plea by Maharashtra government seeking confirmation of the death sentence.Advocates Yug Mohit Chaudhry and Payoshi Roy argued that the sentence had been handed out based on incorrect application of Section 376E.They submitted that the Section 376E would apply only once a convict has undergone sentence and after an opportunity of reformation has been given to the repeated offender. This did not happen in the present case, Chaudhry submitted.Chaudhry further submitted that the trial had not been conducted fairly, as the convicts had not been given a fair opportunity to make submissions on framing of charge under Section 376E and the quantum of sentence.Chaudhry highlighted their impoverished backgrounds and soci-economic conditions which he claimed, prompted them to become violent and commit such an offence.That they were young and had never been subject to any correctional influence earlier in life, it was contended It was, therefore, prayed that the sentence be commuted..The State government on the other hand vehemently opposed the contentions stating that the order of Sessions judge was a deterrent order and was justified. They prayed for the death sentence to be confirmed..[Read judgment]
