‘No societal benefit’: 24 years on, Delhi High Court slashes rape convict’s sentence to time served
The appellant had lost his government employment, was surviving on a meagre income from tuition, and was facing financial hardship, the Delhi High Court was informed.
The counsel on behalf of the appellant, submitted that he has already undergone 5 years, 9 months and 19 days of incarceration. (Image is generated using AI)
Delhi High Court news: The Delhi High Court recently slashed the sentence of a rape convict to the five-year period already undergone, noting that continued incarceration 24 years after his sexual assault of the minor would not serve justice but would only prolong punishment without any corresponding societal benefit.
Justice Vimal Kumar Yadav allowed the appeal, noting that the appellant had already spent over five years in custody, and enhanced his fine to Rs 25,000 from Rs 2,000.
“The Appellant has already undergone a substantial period of incarceration. The continuation of the remaining sentence, in the backdrop of the facts noted above, does not appear to advance the cause of justice any further. Rather, it would result in prolonging the consequences of incarceration without any corresponding societal benefit, particularly when viewed in light of the absence of opposition from the complainant’s side,” the order noted.
The expression “adequate and special reasons” has not been defined in rigid terms, Justice Vimal Kumar Yadav said.
The Delhi High Court underscored that the appellant’s conviction was based on due appreciation of evidence and was final. His guilt stands established and was not open to dilution, it added.
Case in appellant’s favour
In a significant development, the complainant’s counsel Manoj Taneja submitted before the Delhi High Court that they had no objection to the appellant’s plea seeking reduction of sentence to the period already undergone.
The appellant had undergone the sentence for over five years, which carved out the case in his favour in conjunction with the additional facts put across regarding his employment, financial status, period of the criminal trial and appeal, family responsibilities, etc.
The key question before the Delhi High Court was whether the case could be said to fall within the category of exceptional cases warranting departure from the prescribed minimum sentence for “adequate and special reasons”.
Story continues below this ad
The Delhi High Court noted that the expression “adequate and special reasons” has not been defined in rigid terms and, necessarily, on practical application, requires contextual interpretation.
The matter demanded that the court balance all the circumstances, the gravity of the offence and its impact on society, and also the individual and exclusive circumstances of the case, conviction developments, and the effect of prolonged incarceration, etc, which cannot be ignored.
Appellant’s arguments
Advocate Ajit Kumar, along with other advocates, on behalf of the appellant, submitted that he had already undergone 5 years, 9 months and 19 days of incarceration.
It was argued that he had lost his government employment, was surviving on a meagre income from tuition, and was facing financial hardship.
Kumar said the appellant had a daughter of marriageable age and sought that the sentence be reduced to the period of custody already undergone by him.
The appellant had faced the agony and tribulations of a criminal trial for 24 years, he pointed out to the Delhi High Court .
The counsel thus invoked Section 376(2)(g) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) for a reduced sentence.
Imprisoned since 2002
The appellant had taken the 15-year-old survivor in his vehicle from near her school on September 3, 2002, and travelled with her to various places.
She was allegedly rendered unconscious and thereafter subjected to sexual assault by the appellant during their stay at different locations.
The appellant was convicted for offences punishable under sections 363 (kidnapping), 366 (kidnapping or abducting a woman to force her into marriage, seduction, or illicit intercourse), 376 (rape) of the IPC.
He was sentenced to imprisonment for the aforementioned crimes and durations, with the maximum term being seven years, along with a fine, in 2008.
Somya Panwar works with the Legal Desk at The Indian Express, where she covers the various High Courts across the country and the Supreme Court of India. Her writing is driven by a deep interest in how law influences society, particularly in areas of gender, feminism, and women’s rights.
She is especially drawn to stories that examine questions of equality, autonomy, and social justice through the lens of the courts. Her work aims to make complex legal developments accessible, contextual, and relevant to everyday readers, with a focus on explaining what court decisions mean beyond legal jargon and how they shape public life.
Alongside reporting, she manages the social media presence for Indian Express Legal, where she designs and curates posts using her understanding of digital trends, audience behaviour, and visual communication. Combining legal insight with strategic content design, she works on building engagement and expanding the desk’s digital reach.
Somya holds a B.A. LL.B and a Master’s degree in Journalism. Before moving fully into media, she gained experience in litigation and briefly worked in corporate, giving her reporting a strong foundation. ... Read More
The expression “adequate and special reasons” has not been defined in rigid terms, Justice Vimal Kumar Yadav said.