While displaying absolute zero tolerance for a heinous crime like gang-rape and murder, the Delhi High Court has in a remarkable, robust, rational and recent judgment titled Sikander Soni and Another vs State in CRL.A. 1157/2017 that was pronounced just recently on September 1, 2022 in connection with the gang rape and murder of a woman in 2012 whose body was found in a semi-naked condition has modified sentence of two convicts to rigorous imprisonment for life not less than 20 years without remission. The Court also upheld the Trial Court’s sentence of rigorous imprisonment for life for gang rape and rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years for the offence of causing disappearance and giving false information. There can be definitely no room for any kind of leniency in cases of gang rape and murder.

At the outset, this brief, brilliant, bold and balanced judgment authored by Hon’ble Mr Justice Anish Dayal for a Division Bench of Delhi High Court comprising of Hon’ble Ms Justice Mukta Gupta and himself sets the ball rolling by first and foremost putting forth in para 1 that:
This appeal assails the judgment dated 6 th May, 2017 whereby the appellants have been convicted for the offences punishable under Sections under sections 302/201 read with Section 34 IPC and Section 376(2)(g) IPC (as it stood before the amendment in 2013) and order on sentence dated 1st July, 2017 awarding rigorous imprisonment for life (not less than 20 years) and a fine of Rs.25,000/- (simple imprisonment for one year for default in payment) for offence punishable under section 302/34 IPC; rigorous imprisonment for life for offence punishable under section 376 (2)(g) IPC and a fine of Rs.20,000/- (simple imprisonment for one year for default in payment) and rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years for offence punishable under section 201 IPC and a fine of Rs. 5,000/- (in default of payment to undergo simple imprisonment for three months). All sentences were to run concurrently.

To put things in perspective, the Bench then envisages in para 2 that:
As per the case of the prosecution on 24th April, 2012 at about 7.30 a.m., information was received at the Police Post Nehru Place vide DD No.10 that a dead body of a female is lying in a semi naked condition. Police rushed to the spot and found a dead body of a female aged 24-26 years near Metro flyover adjacent to Metro Pillar No. 127 in semi naked condition, wearing black/white colour top, blood oozing out from the mouth, nose and ears of the body and injury marks were all around its face. A black colour jeans with its zip broken was lying at a distance of about 10 steps from the body and broken hairs were also on the body of the deceased. The police found a tattoo with the word ‘Javed’ on her left forearm and on her left middle finger words ‘PG’ were tattooed. On her right forearm, there was another tattoo of trishul and damroo. She was wearing a nose pin, two pairs of ear rings, black string with locket around her neck and a ring with stone on her right hand finger.

While elaborating, the Bench then observes in para 3 that:
SI Ranjan Kumar prepared rukka and case was registered. Crime team and the photographer were called and Inspector Ishwar Singh took over the investigation. On the same day /night, a missing report of a lady namely the prosecutrix having the same description was found lodged by one Javed, resident of Rohini at the P.S. K.N. Katju Marg, Rohini Upon further inquiry the said Javed identified the deceased to be his wife. He stated that in the evening of 23rd April, 2012 he had received a call from Hamida, his first wife that the prosecutrix had left her son Junaid with her and gone to the market and had not returned nor was she picking up the phone. When Javed called the prosecutrix around the evening, she told him that she had come to the Lajpat Nagar market to do shopping for Junaid. However, when she did not reach home till 9:30 p.m., Javed again spoke to her and she mentioned that she had gone to the Defence Colony market and had taken a taxi for reaching Rohini and the taxi number was 9551. This was the last communication that Javed had with the deceased.

Further, the Bench then discloses in para 4 that:
After the post mortem the dead body was handed over to Javed while exhibits had already been taken and handed over to the police. The autopsy surgeon opined the cause of death as asphyxia due to combined effect of ante mortem smothering and throttling, sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature individually as well as collectively. There were findings suggestive of sexual assault and the swabs were preserved for forensic examination and section 376 IPC was therefore added to the FIR. Extensive search was carried out for tracing the particular taxi and the call records of the deceased were analyzed. The analysis of the call records revealed that the deceased was at Defence Colony A Block Market at about 10:00 p.m. when she communicated with her husband Javed and then at about 11:15 p.m. she was at Kailash Colony, New Delhi and then at Lajpat Nagar till about mid night. Post mid night her location was in the vicinity of Satya Niketan, Nanak Pura, Moti Bagh. The last call was made by Hamida on the cell phone of the deceased which according to Hamida was attended by some unknown person.

Furthermore, the Bench then mentions in para 5 that:
On the evening of 13th May, 2012 at about 3:30 p.m., SOS unit of Crime Branch Kotwali received an information vide DD No.7 about the accused persons and at the pointing out of the secret informer, accused Pardeep was apprehended from the service lane Moti Bagh with Taxi No. PB 01 9551 who disclosed of his involvement in this case. Upon his disclosure, other accused Sikander Singh @ Soni was arrested from Nanak Pura who also disclosed of his involvement and his taxi was taken into possession. Upon arrest of both the appellants, they pointed out the place of incident near Nehru Stadium where they had gang raped the deceased in a car and also got recovered a pair of black slippers and a small black purse from the bushes on the road side leading from Kalkaji temple to Satyam Cinema, Nehru Place. Further, appellant Pardeep took the police party to his house at village Takhtgarh, P.S. Noor Pur Bedi, District Ropar, Punjab and got recovered two small rings (one ring and one small ear ring) belonging to the deceased. All the exhibits were sealed and seized by the investigating team and CDRs of mobile number of deceased as well as of appellants were also analyzed. After investigation, charges were framed to which the appellants pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. The prosecution examined 43 witnesses, statements of the appellants were recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and the appellants led evidence of two witnesses in defence.

Most forthrightly, the Bench holds in para 16 that:
Pursuant to a meticulous examination of the evidence on record and appreciation of contentions of the parties, this Court is of the view that the prosecution has proved the guilt of the appellants beyond reasonable doubt. All critical aspects, chain of circumstantial evidence are aligned, consistent and cogent pointing out the guilt of the appellants for rape and murder by strangulation of the deceased. Perusal of the evidence, particularly the testimony of PW-43 and other members of the police team who reached the place of incident as to the condition of the deceased and the subsequent comprehensive scientific analysis including the post mortem, the DNA profile, blood examination, biological examination and the viscera report would show that the appellants brutally raped the deceased in their car having picked her from the Defence Colony market and after strangulating her dumped her body on the road near the bushes on the roadside leading from Kalkaji temple to Satyam Cinema, Nehru Place Metro flyover adjacent to Metro Pillar No. 127. Thus this court finds no error in the impugned judgment dated 6th May, 2017 convicting the appellants for offences punishable under Sections 302/201/34/376(2)(g) IPC.

While taking potshots at the appellants, the Bench then observes in para 17 that:
From the nature of injures as report in the post mortem report (supra) it is evident that the deceased put up a brave resistance before the two appellants who overpowered her physically, caused grievous injures on her body, raped and eventually strangulated her. Thereafter they attempted to erase the evidence by dumping the body on the roadside and extracted her belongings and put them in different locations. Considering the brutality of the act right in heart of Delhi which is usually patrolled by police shows the depraved evil mentality of the appellants, who acted with complete impunity with no fear of either the life or consequence of their act and dignity of the deceased victim.

What’s more, the Bench then notes in para 18 that:
The learned Trial Court in its order on sentence considering the depraved and heinous nature of the crime has sentenced the appellants for life imprisonment for the offence punishable under Section 302/34 IPC along with other sentences for offences punishable under Section 376 (2)(g) IPC and Section 120 IPC besides fines imposed for all the offences.

Briefly stated, the Bench then specifies in para 19 that:
However, as per the decision of constitution bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Union Of India v. V. Sriharan (2016) 7 SCC 1, while examining an issue whether a special category of sentence instead of death for a term exceeding 14 years can be made by putting that category beyond grant of remission held that it is only the Division Bench of the High Court which derives power under the Penal Code to prescribe an alternate punishment with one either for the entirety of the convicts’ life or for a specific period of more than 14 years depending upon the gravity of the crime. Therefore, the learned Trial Court’s direction awarding the sentence of life imprisonment of not less than 20 years, would therefore be erroneous and beyond its jurisdictional power under the Penal Code.

Most significantly, the Bench then holds in para 20 that:
Notwithstanding the fact that the learned Trial Court did not have the power or jurisdiction to grant life sentence of more than 14 years, this Court having appreciated the facts and circumstances of this case, is of the view that the gravity and the depravity of the crime committed by the appellants was of a serious nature and therefore this Court issued notice to the said appellants and directed production in Court to show cause as to why their sentence should not be fixed for a period of more than 14 years. Having considered their submissions in person and through counsel on the issue of sentence, this Court, in exercise of jurisdiction conferred and clarified by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sriharan (supra), sentences the appellants for life imprisonment of not less than twenty years without remission for offence punishable under Section 302/34 IPC taking into account the gravity of the crime and in exercise of judicial conscience befitting such offence.

Most remarkably, the Bench then points out in para 21 that:
It is apposite to remember and echo the observations of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Mukesh v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2017) 6 SCC 1: The incident of gang rape on the night of 16th December, 2012 in the capital sparked public protest not only in Delhi but nationwide. We live in a civilised society where law and order is supreme and the citizens enjoy inviolable fundamental human rights. But when the incident of gang rape like the present one surfaces, it causes ripples in the conscience of society and serious doubts are raised as to whether we really live in a civilised society and whether both men and women feel the same sense of liberty and freedom which they should have felt in the ordinary course of a civilised society, driven by Rule of Law. Certainly, whenever such grave violations of human dignity come to fore, an unknown sense of insecurity and helplessness grabs the entire society, women in particular, and the only succour people look for, is the State to take command of the situation and remedy it effectively.

As a corollary, the Bench then holds in para 22 that:
In view of the above analysis and discussion, this Court is of the considered view that the prosecution has been able to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt and the impugned judgment on conviction by the learned Trial Court is duly upheld. The order on sentence by the learned Trial Court is modified to the extent that life sentence for the offence punishable under Section 302/34 IPC will be for rigorous imprisonment for life not less than 20 years without remission. The rest of the sentence for offence punishable under Section 376(2)(g) IPC and 201 IPC shall remain the same as awarded by the Learned Trial Court. The appeal is accordingly disposed of as per directions stated above.

Finally, the Division Bench then concludes by holding in para 23 that:
Copy of this judgment be uploaded on website and be also sent to Superintendent, Tihar Jail for intimation to the appellants and updation of records.

In conclusion, we thus see that the Delhi High Court has very rightly upheld the gang rape and murder conviction and modified the sentence appropriately as stated above. There has to be zero tolerance for such heinous crimes and that too against woman. There can be no justification of any kind for such brutal and horrifying acts for which there has to be absolute zero tolerance and that is what the Delhi High Court has so very commendably demonstrated in this leading case also by imposing the strictest punishment! No denying it!

Sanjeev Sirohi, Advocate,
s/o Col (Retd) BPS Sirohi, A 82, Defence Enclave,
Sardhana Road, Kankerkhera, Meerut – 250001, Uttar Pradesh