wp.1181.1182.14527.18.(J).doc

INTHEHIGHCOURTOFJUDICATUREATBOMBAY
APPELLATESIDECRIMINALJURISDICTION
WRITPETITIONNO.1181OF2014

Mohd.SalimMohd.KudusAnsari
Ageabout27years,Occ.-PunchingOperator,
ResidingatVishnuNagarBuilding,
RoomNo.2,NearDattaMandir,
MahulVillage,VashiNaka,
Mumbai-400074…..Petitioner

V/S

1.StateofMaharashtra
[Summonstobeservedupon
Ld.PublicProsecutorappointed
u/s.24SectionoftheCodeofCriminal
Procedure,1973].

2.UjwalD.Nikam
SpecialPublicProsecutor,
appointedinSessionsCase
No.846/2013AND914/2013
atBombaySessionsCourt
throughDCBCID,Unit-III,
Mumbai…..Respondents

WITH
WRITPETITIONNO.1182OF2014

Mohd.KasimMohdHasimShaikh
Ageabout19years,Occ.-Mason,
ResidingatZopdaNo.188,
MaulanaAzadRoad,Agripada,
Mumbai…..Petitioner

SQPathan1/117

:::Uploadedon-03/06/201904/06/201902:17:05:::
wp.1181.1182.14527.18.(J).doc

V/S

1.StateofMaharashtra
[Summonstobeservedupon
Ld.PublicProsecutorappointed
u/s.24SectionoftheCodeofCriminal
Procedure,1973]

2.UjwalD.Nikam
SpecialPublicProsecutor,
appointedinSessionsCase
No.846/2013AND914/2013
atBombaySessionsCourt
throughDCBCID,Unit-III,
Mumbai…..Respondents

WITH
WRITPETITIONNO.527OF2018

VijayJadhav
Ageabout22years,
presentlyincarceratedat
YerwadaCentralPrison,Pune
R/o.VishnunagarbuildingNo.R/2,
3rdFloor,RoomNo.307,
MahulVillage,VashiNaka,
Mumbai-400074…..Petitioner

V/S

1.StateofMaharashtra
ThroughP.P.AppellateSide,HighCourt.

2.UnionofIndia….Respondents

Dr.YugMohitChaudhary,Sr.AdvocatewithMs.RaginiAhujaand
Ms.PayoshiRoyforPetitioners.

SQPathan2/117

:::Uploadedon-03/06/201904/06/201902:17:05:::
wp.1181.1182.14527.18.(J).doc

Mr.A.A.Kumbhakoni,AdvocateGenerala/wMr.AshutoshKulkarni,
Panel’A’Counsel,Mr.GauravSharma,Ms.ChandniSachade,Mr.Sagar
Ghogare,Ms.MrinalikaDevarapalli,Mr.S.B.LolageandMr.J.P.Yagnik,
fortheRespondentNo.1-StateofMaharashtra.

Mr.AnilC.Singh,AdditionalSolicitorGeneral,a/wMr.SandeshPatil,
Ms.ManjiriParasnis,Mr.AdityaThakkar,Ms.GeetikaGandhi,Mr.Amogh
Singh,Mr.CarinaXavier,Ms.DivyaPawari/bMr.D.P.Singhforthe
Respondent-UnionofIndia.

Mr.AabadPonda,AmicusCuriaea/wMr.KarmaVivan,Mr.Ashish
RaghuvanshiandMr.BhomeshBellam.

CORAM:B.P.DHARMADHIKARI
REVATIMOHITEDERE,JJ.

RESERVEDON:5thMarch,2019
PRONOUNCEDON:3rdJune,2019

JUDGMENT(PerRevatiMohiteDere,J.):

1.TheconstitutionalvalidityofSection376-EinsertedinSectionthe

IndianPenalCode(`SectionIPC’)bytheSectionCriminalLaw(Amendment)Actof2013,

witheffectfrom3rdFebruary2013,isunderchallengebeforeus,inthese

petitions.ThesaidSectionreadsthus:

SQPathan3/117

:::Uploadedon-03/06/201904/06/201902:17:05:::
wp.1181.1182.14527.18.(J).doc

“376-E.Punishmentforrepeatoffenders:-“Whoeverhasbeen
previouslyconvictedofanoffencepunishableunderSectionsection376or
Sectionsection376-AorSectionsection376-ABorSectionsection376-DorSectionsection376-DA
orSectionsection376-DB,andissubsequentlyconvictedofanoffence
punishableunderanyofthesaidsectionsshallbepunishedwith
imprisonmentforlifewhichshallmeanimprisonmentforthe
remainderofthatperson’snaturallife,orwithdeath”.

2.Thesepetitionsariseinsomewhatpeculiarcircumstances.The

petitionersweretriedfortheoffencepunishableunderSection376ofthe

IPCandotheroffences,intwocasesi.e.inSessionsCaseNos.914of2013

and846of2013.Boththecasesweretriedsimultaneouslyandon20th

March2014,theorderofconvictionwaspronouncedinboththesetrials.

TheSessionsCourtadjournedthecasesto21stMarch2014forhearingthe

petitionersonthepointofsentence.Onthesaidday,thelearnedJudge

pronouncedthesentenceandawardedlifesentencetotheaccusedin

SessionsCaseNo.914of2013.Thereafter,SessionsCaseNo.846of2013

wastakenup,whenthelearnedSpecialPublicProsecutorpresentedan

applicationbeforethelearnedSessionsJudgeunderSection211(7)ofthe

CodeofCriminalProcedure(`SectionCr.P.C’)andprayedforframingofcharge

SQPathan4/117

:::Uploadedon-03/06/201904/06/201902:17:05:::
wp.1181.1182.14527.18.(J).doc

underSection376-Easagainstthepetitioners-VijayJadhav,Mohd.

KasimMohdHasimShaikhandMohd.SalimMohd.KudusAnsari.On

24thMarch2014,thelearnedSessionsJudgeallowedthesaidapplication.

Thepetitionerssoughtstayoftheoperationoftheorderforaperiodoftwo

weekstoenablethemtoapproachtheHighCourt,however,thesamewas

refused.Pursuantthereto,thepetitionerspleadednotguiltytothecharge

framedagainstthem,underSection376-EoftheIPC.Thepetitioners-

Mohd.SalimMohd.KudusAnsariandMohd.KasimMohdHasimShaikh,

filedtwowritpetitions,beingWritPetitionNos.1181of2014and1182of

2014respectivelybeforethisCourt,challengingtheconstitutionalvalidity

ofSection376-EofIPCandforstrikingdownthesameandalsofor

quashingoftheorderdated24thMarch2014passedbythelearnedJudge,

framingchargeunderSection376-EoftheIPCandforstayofthe

proceedings.ThisCourt,afterhearingthepartiesatlength,videorder

dated27thMarch2014,issuednoticetotheAttorneyGeneral.Sincethe

trialwasatthefagend,thetrialwasnotstayed,butallquestions/issues

werekeptopen.Thereafter,thetrialproceededandthepetitionerswere

awardeddeathsentenceunderSection376-EofIPCinSessionsCase

No.846of2013.In2018,petitioner-VijayJadhavalsofiledapetition,

SQPathan5/117

:::Uploadedon-03/06/201904/06/201902:17:05:::
wp.1181.1182.14527.18.(J).doc

beingCriminalWritPetitionNo.527of2018,challengingthe

constitutionalvalidityofSection376-EoftheIPCandprayedthatSection

376-Ebedeclaredasunconstitutionalandforstrikingdownthesame.

Accordingly,alltheaforesaidthreepetitionshavebeentaggedtogetherfor

consideration.Wemaynote,thatasthepetitioners’confirmationappeals

arebeinglookedintobytheCoordinateBench,wearenotconcernedwith

theactualfactsinvolvedinthesaidconfirmationcases,andassuchhave

narratedonlytheeventsthatledtothefilingofthesepetitions.

SubmissionsofDr.YugChaudhary:

3.Dr.Chaudhary,learnedseniorcounselforthepetitioners

submittedthatSection376-EoftheIPCisunconstitutional,asitviolates

Articles14and21oftheConstitution,onthefollowinggrounds:-(i)thatit

createsanewcategoryofpunishment,namelyimprisonmenttillthe

remainderofone’snaturallife,whichisnotenvisagedasapunishmentin

theSectionIPC;(ii)thatSection376-Edenudesconstitutionalpowersofremission;

(iii)thatSection376-Edenudesthestatutorypowersofremission;(iv)that

Section376-Eviolatestheprincipleofproportionalitybyprescribinga

sentenceofdeath,whichisdisproportionatetothenatureofoffence

SQPathan6/117

:::Uploadedon-03/06/201904/06/201902:17:05:::
wp.1181.1182.14527.18.(J).doc

therein;(v)thatSection376-Eindirectlyimposesamandatorydeath

sentence,andassuchisviolativeofSectionArticle21oftheConstitution.

RelianceisplacedontheApexCourtdecisioninSectionMithuvs.Stateof

Punjab1;(vi)thatSection376-Eisdiscriminatoryandarbitrary;(vii)that

noprocedureexistsforimplementationofSection376-E,and(viii)that

Section376-Eisvoidforvagueness.Sincesomeofthegroundsare

overlapping,thesamewillbedealtwithtogetherindetail,hereinunder.

4.AccordingtoDr.Chaudhary,Section376-Ecreatesanew

categoryofpunishmentnamely,imprisonmentforlife,whichmeans

imprisonmentfortheremainderofthatperson’snaturallife,whichisnot

envisagedasapunishmentintheSectionIPC.HesubmitsthatSection53ofthe

IPCprescribesvariouspunishmentsthatcanbeimposedbyaCourtoflaw,

however,thesaidSectiondoesnotincludethepunishmentof

imprisonmentforremainderofone’snaturallife.Itissubmittedthatby

creatingthisnewcategoryofpunishmentunderSection376-Ei.e.

imprisonmentforlife,whichmeansimprisonmentfortheremainderofthat

person’snaturallife,anewcategoryofpunishmentiscreated,whichis

inconsistentwiththeexistingprovisions,relatingtopunishmentintheSectionIPC.

1(1983)2SCC277

SQPathan7/117

:::Uploadedon-03/06/201904/06/201902:17:05:::
wp.1181.1182.14527.18.(J).doc

LearnedseniorcounselinvitedourattentiontothedecisionsoftheApex

CourtinSectionMaruRamvs.UnionofIndiaandOrs.2,SectionGopalVinayakGodse

vs.StateofMaharashtra3,andSectionUnionofIndiavs.V.Sriharan4and

submittedthattheconceptofimprisonmentforlifehasbeenexplainedby

theApexCourttherein,andthesamecannotbelostsightof,while

examiningthechallengeinthesepetitions.AccordingtoDr.Chaudhary,

punishmentmustbecertainandknowntoanaccusedclearly,beforehand

andtheremustbenoconfusionorvagueness.Ourattentionisinvitedto

Section376ofIPC,particularlyitssub-sections,tohighlightthedifference

inpunishmentsprescribedinthosesub-sections.Itisfurthersubmittedthat

thereisnoaccompanyingmachineryprovidedintheSectionCr.P.Cforthe

executionofthesaidsentencei.e.imprisonmenttilltheremainderofone’s

naturallifeunderSection376-E.HereliedonSection418oftheCr.P.Cin

thisregard,toshowthatthereisnomentionofimprisonmenttillthe

remainderofone’snaturallife,resultinginnomechanismtoexecutethe

saidsentence.This,accordingtothelearnedseniorcounsel,makesSection

376-EviolativeofSectionArticle21.Hesubmitsthatitiswellestablished,that

lifeandlibertycannotbetakenaway,exceptbyprocedureestablishedby
2(1981)1SCC107
3(1961)3SCR440
4(2016)7SCC1

SQPathan8/117

:::Uploadedon-03/06/201904/06/201902:17:05:::
wp.1181.1182.14527.18.(J).doc

law.

5.Dr.Chaudharysubmitsthatarbitrarinesscanbeagroundto

challengethelawenactedbytheParliament.Accordingtothelearned

seniorcounsel,Section302ofIPCi.e.murder,amoreseriousoffence,

allowspunishmentforvaryingperiodi.e.fromlifetilldeath,whereas,the

offenceunderSection376-E,thoughofalesserdegree,prescribes

punishmentwhichismoregrave,namelyforimprisonmenttillthe

remainderofthatperson’snaturallifeorwithdeath.Hesubmittedthat

Section376-Eismanifestlyarbitrary,asthereisnodeterminingprinciple

forcreatingaharsherstandardofpunishmentunderSection376-E,by

loweringthecriteriaforenhancedpunishmentasopposedtoSection75of

theIPC.AccordingtoDr.Chaudhary,Section75alreadyprescribes

enhancedpunishmentforrepeatoffenders,whohavebeenpreviously

convictedandwhosubsequentlycommitanotheroffence,whichhecallsas

an`offencemodel’,andthatSection376-Efallsfouloftheprinciplesof

enhancedpunishment,whichalreadyexists.HesubmitsthatSection376-E

createsanewmodelofenhancedpunishment,whichonlyrequiresthe

existenceofapreviousconviction,irrespectiveofthechronologyof

SQPathan9/117

:::Uploadedon-03/06/201904/06/201902:17:05:::
wp.1181.1182.14527.18.(J).doc

offences.LearnedseniorcounselsubmitsthatSection75andSection376-

Ecannotbeallowedtohavedifferentoutcomes,whentheyarebothpartof

thesamecodeandhavethesameobjective.AccordingtoDr.Chaudhary,

anarbitraryanddiscriminatoryoutcomeunderSection376-Ecannotbe

permitted,whenaperson’slifeisatstake.Tobuttresshissubmission,

learnedseniorcounselreliedonthedecisionsinSectionShayaraBanovs.Union

ofIndia5,SectionJohnVallamattomvs.UnionofIndia6,SectionAjayHasiaandOrs.

vs.KhalidMujibSehravardiandOrs.7,Reg.vs.SakyaValadKavji8,

Statevs.Badri9andSectionJagdishPrasadvs.StateofU.P.10

6.Advancingfurtherargumentsonthegroundofarbitrariness,Dr.

Chaudhary,submitsthatSection376-Epromotesinequality.Learnedsenior

counselreliedonthedecisionoftheApexCourtinAjayHasia(supra)to

showthatSectionArticle14hasbeeninterpretedtoincludeguaranteeagainst

arbitrarinessandthatarbitrarinessinstate-actioneitherbythelegislatureor

theexecutive,issufficienttoinitiatethatactionmentionedinpara16of

thesaidjudgment.Tobuttresshissubmission,learnedseniorcounselpoints
5(2017)9SCC1
6(2003)6SCC611
7(1981)1SCC722
8(1863)5BHCR36
9AIR1965Raj152
10AIR1966SC290

SQPathan10/117

:::Uploadedon-03/06/201904/06/201902:17:05:::
wp.1181.1182.14527.18.(J).doc

outtheschemeintheSectionIPCtoshowthattherearenumerousprovisionsfor

punishingrepeatoffendersandthatSection376-Edoesnotfollowthe

`offenceparadigm’asenvisagedinSectionIPC.Accordingtohim,intheschemeof

SectionIPC,higherorenhancedpunishmentisforsecondoffencei.e.theoffence

whichiscommittedafterthefirstconviction.HetookusthroughSections

303,Section307(2)andthelanguageofSection75ofIPCforthispurpose.

Accordingtohim,theobjectbehindthisschemeistogiveanopportunity

toaconvicttoreform,whereas,suchanopportunityisnotprovidedunder

Section376-E,andhence,Section376-Esuffersfromtheviceof

arbitrariness,warrantingittobedeclaredasunconstitutional.

7.RelianceisalsoplacedonForm32inScheduleIIofSectionCr.PC.to

showhowthechargeforhigherpunishmentafterpreviousconvictionneeds

tobeframed.ItissubmittedthatasSection376-Eoverlooksthisaspect,it

adherestotheconvictionparadigmonly.Dr.Chaudharyplacedrelianceon

theprovisionsofSections396andSection460IPCtoshowthatifdeathoccurs

whilecommittingsomeotheroffence,higherpunishmentisprescribed,

whereas,thereisnohigherpunishmentforseconddacoity,orsecond

robberyorsecondtrespass,etc.andassuch,thereisnorationalefor

SQPathan11/117

:::Uploadedon-03/06/201904/06/201902:17:05:::
wp.1181.1182.14527.18.(J).doc

treatingsecondrapedifferently.AccordingtoDr.Chaudhary,Section

376-EdeviatesfromtheoffenceparadigminSectionIPC.

8.Learnedseniorcounselrelieduponthe42ndreportoftheLaw

CommissionofIndia(onSectionIPC)publishedinJune,1971,toshowthe

purposeandobjectofSection75ofIPC.Hesubmitsthatthisreporttakes

notethatSection75itselfacceptsanintervalbetweenpreviousconviction

andsubsequentoffence.Dr.Chaudharypointsoutthatthischanceto

reforminsisteduponbytheLawCommissionislostinSection376-E.

TheDivisionBenchjudgmentofthisCourtinthecaseofSectionSayadAbdul

SayadImamvs.Emperor11isalsorelieduponbythelearnedseniorcounsel

tobuttresshissubmission.ThedecisioninSakyaValadKavji(supra)is

alsoreliedupontoshowthatSection75ofIPCisattractedonlyifthe

secondoffenceiscommittedsubsequenttoanyconviction.Thedecisionin

thecaseofBadri(supra),inparticular,paras4and11isalsoreliedupon

inthisconnection.ThesaidcasewasundertheSectionPreventionofFood

AdulterationAct.Inthesaidcase,theRajasthanHighCourtheldthatwhile

interpretinglawwhichprovidesenhancedpenalty,legalmeaningofphrases

usedthereinshouldprevailoverthegrammaticalconstructionthereofand
11AIR1926Bom305

SQPathan12/117

:::Uploadedon-03/06/201904/06/201902:17:05:::
wp.1181.1182.14527.18.(J).doc

hencethephrase”thesecondoffence”shouldbeconstruedasthatoffence

whichhasbeencommittedaftertheoffenderhadbeenconvictedforthe

firstoffence.Thisaccordingtothelearnedseniorcounsel,hasalsobeen

acceptedbytheApexCourtinJagdishPrasad(supra).

9.Dr.Chaudhary,thussubmitsthatwhileintroducingSection

376-EofIPC,nocorrespondingnewprocedurehasbeenaddedinCr.P.C.

HesubmitsthatSection211(7)ofCr.P.Crequiresthesubsequentoffenceto

beafterthepreviousconvictionandthatthereisnoprocedurecontemplated

toframechargeunderSection376-E.

10.Whilepointingoutabsenceofprocedure,Dr.Chaudhary,

invitedourattentiontoSection219ofCr.P.C.tourgethatiftwooffences

ofrapeoccurinayear,theycouldbetriedtogetherandthatinsucha

circumstance,therewouldbenopreviousconvictionandthequestionof

applyingSection376-Ewouldnotarise.HepointsouthowSection220of

theIPCdealswiththeoffenceoflurkinghousetresspassandrape

committedduringit,howSection376(2)(n)doesnotenvisagemultiple

SQPathan13/117

:::Uploadedon-03/06/201904/06/201902:17:05:::
wp.1181.1182.14527.18.(J).doc

rapesonasinglewoman,assecondoffence,andhowtheoffenceunder

Section302and326thoughrepeated,arepunishableunderthosevery

Sections,andthatthereisnospecialprovisionlike376-E.

11.Onthepointofremission,Dr.ChaudharysubmitsthatSectionArticle

161oftheConstitutionofIndiaconferspowerupontheGovernortogrant

pardonwhileSectionArticle72confersasimilarpoweruponthePresident.He

submitsthatnowwiththeinsertionofSection376-EintheSectionIPC,andthe

punishmentprescribedtherein,thispoweroftheGovernorandthe

Presidentistakenaway.Similarly,thewelfaremeasuresofremissionetc.

underSections432andSection433ofCr.P.C.arealsodeclined.Learnedsenior

counseladds,thatthoughthereisnonon-obstanteclauselikeSection31

oftheNarcoticDrugsandPsychotropicSubstancesAct,(`NDPSAct’),the

petitionerswouldnotbeentitledtobereleased,eitherunderSections432

or433Cr.P.C,ifconvictedunderSection376-E.

12.LearnedseniorcounselreliedonthedecisionoftheApex

CourtinMaruRam(supra),tourgethatwherethesentenceis

indeterminateandofuncertainduration,resultofsubtractionfromthat

SQPathan14/117

:::Uploadedon-03/06/201904/06/201902:17:05:::
wp.1181.1182.14527.18.(J).doc

uncertainquantityisstillanuncertainquantity.Hepointedoutthatin

Godse(supra),theApexCourtheldthatimprisonmentforlifemeans

imprisonmentforthewholeoftheremainingperiodoftheconvicted

person’snaturallife.Para26ofMaruRam(supra)isalsorelieduponto

showthatthelanguageofSection433ACr.P.C,wherelifesentenceis

dealtwith,remissionleadsnowhereandtheprisonerisnotentitledto

release.Therelevantportionofpara26ofMaruRam(supra),reliedupon

isreproducedbelow:-

“………….Inthisview,theremissionrulesdonotmilitate
againsts.433AandtheforensicfateofGodse(whowas
laterreleasedbytheState)whohadstock-piledhuge
remissionswithoutacquiringarighttorelease,must
overtakeallthepetitionersuntil14yearsofactualjail
lifeissufferedandfurtheranorderofreleaseismade
eitherunders.432orArts.72/161oftheConstitution.”

13.Dr.Chaudhary,learnedseniorcounselalsosubmittedthat

Section376-EisviolativeofSectionArticle21,asitviolatestheprincipleof

proportionality,byprescribingasentenceofdeathforanoffencewhereno

deathhasbeencaused.Hesubmittedthatabalancemustbestruckbetween

theharmcausedandthepunishmentawardedandthatthesentenceofdeath

maybegivenonlywheredeathiscaused.Hesubmittedthattheoffenceof

SQPathan15/117

:::Uploadedon-03/06/201904/06/201902:17:05:::
wp.1181.1182.14527.18.(J).doc

302i.e.murder,isfargraverthantheoffenceofrape,inasmuchas,deathis

caused,however,underSection376-E,deathsentencecanbeawardedtoan

accusedforrepeatoffenceevenwhendeathisnotcaused.Accordingto

Dr.Chaudhary,thereareothernon-homicidaloffences,wheredeath

sentenceisprescribed,however,thesaidoffencescannotbetreatedatpar

withtheoffenceofrepeatrapei.e.376-E.Hesubmittedthatthe

introductionofdeathsentenceunderSection376-Eviolatesthestandard

laiddowninSectionBachanSinghvs.StateofPunjab12,wherein,ithasbeenheld

thatitisonlyintherarestofrarecasesthatdeathcanbeawardedandonly

whenthealternativeoptionisforeclosed.HesubmittedthateventheVerma

Committeedidnotconsiderdeathtobeanappropriatesentence,incasesof

rape.Hereliedonparas24and25oftheVermaCommitteereport.Dr.

ChaudharyalsoreliedonSectionOmKumarandOrs.vs.UnionofIndia13,

SectionVikramSinghvs.UnionofIndia14,Kennedyvs.Louisiana15andShayara

Bano(supra),insupportthereof.HesubmittedthattheApexCourtin

VikramSingh(supra),whileupholdingtheconstitutionalvalidityof

Section364-AIPC,readdownthescopeoftheapplicabilityofdeath

12(1980)2SCC684
13(2001)2SCC386
14(2015)9SCC502
15554US407(2008)

SQPathan16/117

:::Uploadedon-03/06/201904/06/201902:17:05:::
wp.1181.1182.14527.18.(J).doc

sentenceinthissection.

14.HesubmittedthattheSupremeCourtoftheUnitedStatesof

AmericainKennedy(supra),relyinguponthedecisioninSectionEhrlich

AnthonyCokervs.StateofGeorgia16,heldthatthesentenceofdeathis

unconstitutionalincaseofrapeofaminor,whichwasnotaccompaniedby

takingoflife.AccordingtoDr.Chaudhary,Section376-Eisanoutcomeof

anexcessiveanddisproportionatelegislation,makingitarbitraryand

violativeofSectionArticle14oftheConstitution.

15.OurattentionisalsodrawntothedecisionoftheSupreme

CourtofUnitedStatesinCoker’scase(supra),particularly,para16

onwardstoshowthattheoffenceofrapeisnotseenasequivalentto

murder.LearnedseniorcounselrelyingonEarlEnmundvs.Florida17,in

particularpara26ofthejudgment,submittedthattheCourtafterreferring

toCoker’scase(supra),observedthatproportionalityasregardscapital

punishmentsnotonlyrequiresanenquiryintocontemporarystandardsas

expressedbylegislatorsandjurors,butalsoinvolvesthenotionthatthe

16433US584(1977)
17458US782(1982)

SQPathan17/117

:::Uploadedon-03/06/201904/06/201902:17:05:::
wp.1181.1182.14527.18.(J).doc

magnitudeofthepunishmentimposedmustberelatedtothedegreeofthe

harminflictedonthevictim,aswellastothedegreeofthedefendant’s

blameworthiness.DecisionoftheSupremeCourtofUnitedStatesin

Kennedy(supra)isalsorelieduponforthesamepurposeandobservations

inpartIIofthejudgmentarepressedintoservice.Thisjudgment,in

conclusion,recordsthattherearemoralgroundstoquestionrulebarring

capitalpunishmentsagainstanindividualthatdidnotresultindeathandas

theoffenceisagainsttheindividual,themoderationorrestraintin

applicationofcapitalpunishmentwascalledfor.

16.Learnedseniorcounseldrewourattentiontothe

communicationbyT.R.Macaulayoncapitalpunishment,where,while

explaininghisreasonsfornotprescribingdeathaspunishmentforrape,

LordMacaulayobservedthatlesserpunishmentwouldbestrong

inducementtosparelivesofvictims.AccordingtoDr.Chaudhary,alaw

whichhangsanaccusedforrapewouldnotdeterhim,inhisdesignto

committhecrime,toalsocommittheoffenceofmurder,aspunishmentfor

murderandrapeisthesame.Dr.Chaudharyrelieduponthe262ndreportof

theLawCommissionwhichenvisagesdeathonlyforterrorism.Headds

SQPathan18/117

:::Uploadedon-03/06/201904/06/201902:17:05:::
wp.1181.1182.14527.18.(J).doc

thatthecelebratedjudgmentoftheApexCourtinBachanSingh(supra)

uphelddeathpunishmentonlybecauseitwasforanoffencewherelifewas

takenaway.

17.Dr.ChaudharysubmitsthatSection376-E,byintroducing

deathasasentence,effectivelymakesdeathmandatory.Accordingtohim,

ifanaccusedisalreadyconvictedunderSection376-A,inarepeatoffence,

thereisnooptionforCourts,buttoimposedeathpenalty,asnoother

“enhanced”punishmentispossible.AccordingtoDr.Chaudhary,when

Section376-EofIPCisresortedto,thereisnodiscretionleftbythelaw,

withtheCourtbuttoimposethehighestpunishment,whichisdeath.

Dr.ChaudharysubmitsthatSection376-EviolatesSectionArticle21,inasmuchas,

itrobsthediscretionofsentencinganaccused,fromajudge,whichisat

theheartofthesentencingjurisprudenceinIndianCriminalLaw.Learned

seniorcounselsubmitsthatwithrespecttoSections376-AandSection376-E,the

purposeofenhancedpunishmentcannotbemetasboththeSectionscarry

thesamepunishment,therebyrenderingSection376-Eotiose.According

tothelearnedseniorcounsel,withrespecttoSection376andSection

376-D,theobservationsinSectionMohammadivs.State18,wouldimplythatif
181957Cri.LJ275

SQPathan19/117

:::Uploadedon-03/06/201904/06/201902:17:05:::
wp.1181.1182.14527.18.(J).doc

uponthefirstconvictionunderSection376-Aor376-D,asentenceoflife

imprisonmentisawarded,achargeunderSection376-Ewouldnecessarily

demandenhancedpunishmenti.e.death.Hesubmitsthattheonlyway

Section376-Eisnotrenderedotiose,is,ifonsubsequentconviction,the

punishmentawardedunderSection376-Eisgreaterthanthefirst

punishmentoflifeimprisonment,whichcanonlybeasentenceofdeath.

HesubmittedthatinviewofSectionSaibannavs.StateofKarnataka19,there

cannotbetwoconsecutivelifesentences,andhencetherewillbeno

discretionvestedinthetrialCourttoawardanyothersentence,otherthan

death.ReliancewasalsoplacedonMithu(supra),wherein,theApex

CourtstruckdownSection303ofIPC,asitprovidedmandatorydeath

sentence,foranoffencecommittedunderSection302,whilstundergoinga

sentenceofimprisonmentforlife;aswellasonthedecisionoftheApex

CourtinSectionStateofPunjabvsDalbirSingh20,whereinSection27(3)ofthe

ArmsAct,1959wasstruckdown,asitprovidedmandatorydeathsentence,

forthesaidoffence.

19(2005)4SCC165

20(2012)3SCC346

SQPathan20/117

:::Uploadedon-03/06/201904/06/201902:17:05:::
wp.1181.1182.14527.18.(J).doc

18.LearnedseniorcounselalsorelieduponSaibanna(supra)to

urgethatinthesaidcase,theApexCourtfoundthattherecanbeno

impositionofsecondlifeterm,asitwouldbeameaninglessexercise.He

has,however,alsoinvitedourattentiontotheobservationsoftheApex

CourtinthecaseofSectionSantoshkumarSatishbhushanBariyarvs.Stateof

Maharashtra21toshowthattheseobservationswerefoundtobe

inconsistentwiththeearlierviewoftheApexCourtinMithu(supra)and

BachanSingh(supra).HeexplainsthatinSaibanna(supra),theApex

CourtrelieduponBachanSingh(supra)tonotethatdeathsentenceis

constitutional,onlywhenitisprescribedasanalternativesentence.

AccordingtoDr.Chaudhary,Section376-Emakesdeathsentence

mandatory.

19.Lastly,Dr.Chaudharysubmitsthatinviewoftheerrorsand

lacunaepointedoutbyhim,theburdentoshowconstitutionalityofSection

376-Ewhichdeprivesthecitizenofhislife,liesontheGovernment.He

reliedonthedecisionoftheApexCourtinSectionDeenavs.UnionofIndia22,in

particularlyparas11,15,17and21,insupportthereof.Hesubmitsthatas
21(2009)6SCC498

22(1983)4SCC645

SQPathan21/117

:::Uploadedon-03/06/201904/06/201902:17:05:::
wp.1181.1182.14527.18.(J).doc

theStateisrelyingupontheprocedurefordeprivingthepetitionersoftheir

lives,theburdenisupontheStatetoshowthatthereexistsaprocedurein

theSectionCr.P.Candthatthesaidprocedureisjust,reasonableandfairandnot

unconstitutional.

SubmissionsofMr.AnilSingh,thelearnedAdditionalSolicitor

General:

20.LearnedAdditionalSolicitorGeneral(`ASG’)submittedthat

everywomanhasafundamentalrighttoliveherlifewithdignityand

honour,withoutanyviolationandthattheStateisunderanobligationto

safeguardit.Heinvitedourattentiontothereplyaffidavitfiledbythe

UnionofIndia,toshowthattheratioofcrimeagainstwomenisontherise

andthattheyfacerisksnotonlyinthesocietybutalsofromrelatives.He

submitsthatcertainoffencesareseenascausingstigmaonthewomenand

hence,severalwomendonotcomeforwardtocomplainagainstthe

perpetrator.LearnedASGreliedonthedecisionofApexCourtin

SectionJugendraSinghvs.StateofU.P.23,toshowhowinIndiansociety,rapeis

seenasamoreseriousoffencethanmurder.AccordingtothelearnedASG,

23(2012)6SCC297

SQPathan22/117

:::Uploadedon-03/06/201904/06/201902:17:05:::
wp.1181.1182.14527.18.(J).doc

thisobligestheGovernmenttobemorecautiousandpragmatic.Hefurther

submittedthatanunfortunateeventledtotheappointmentofaCommittee,

headedbyaretiredChiefJusticeofIndia,ShriVerma,whichreportwas

thenviewedbytheParliamentaryCommitteeafterinvitingobjectionsand

thentheBillwasfinalized.He,therefore,statesthattheinsertionofSection

376-EintheSectionIPC,isafterduedeliberationandwithadefiniteobject,which

objectneedstobehonouredbytheCourtsoflaw.HesubmitsthatinIndia,

offenceofmurderandofrape,standondifferentfootings.Hesubmitsthat

Section53ofIPCneedstobeunderstoodinthelightofSection45which

defineswhat”life”means.HereliedupontheConstitutionBenchdecision

oftheApexCourtinV.Sriharan(supra),insupportofhissubmission.He

alsoreliedupontheobservationsmadebytheApexCourtinparas51,52

and53ofthesaidjudgmentforthispurpose.Healsoreliedonpara57

therein,whichreferstoanearlierjudgmentinthecaseofSectionRanjitSinghvs.

UTofChandigarh24,toshowthattwolifesentencescanrunconsecutively

toensurethatevenifanyremissionisgrantedforthefirstlifesentence,the

secondonecancommencethereafter.Hepointedoutthatinpara61,the

ConstitutionBenchhasheldthat`imprisonmentforlife’intermsof

24(1984)1SCC31

SQPathan23/117

:::Uploadedon-03/06/201904/06/201902:17:05:::
wp.1181.1182.14527.18.(J).doc

Section53readwithSection45ofIPC,meansimprisonmentforrestofthe

naturallifeoftheprisoner,subjecthowever,totherighttoclaimremission

underArticles72and161oftheConstitutionandalsoasprovidedunder

Section432ofCr.P.C.Healsoreliedupontheobservationsmadeinpara87

inV.Sriharan(supra),toshowthatitcannotbesaidthatbyspecifying

theperioduptowhichsentenceoflifeshouldremain,theCourtis

encroachingonthepowersoftheexecutive.Hepointedoutthatthe

ConstitutionBenchhasalsoobservedthatthepunishmentprescribed

underSection376-Eisnotinconflictwithanylegalprinciple.Hesubmits

thattheconstitutionalpowers,bothunderSectionArticle72andSectionArticle161ofthe

Constitutionremainuntouched.Healsosubmittedthatthebartogrant

reliefunderSections432andSection433ofCr.P.C.isliftedafterthespecified

periodofimprisonmentisundergone.

21.Dealingwiththeothergrounds,learnedASGsubmitsthat

Section418ofCr.P.C.takescareoftheproceduretobefollowedunder

Section376-EasobservedbytheConstitutionBenchinV.Sriharan’s

(supra).Ontheaspectofproportionality,learnedASGreliedonVikram

Singh(supra),inparticularpara52,inwhichtheApexCourthasobserved

SQPathan24/117

:::Uploadedon-03/06/201904/06/201902:17:05:::
wp.1181.1182.14527.18.(J).doc

thatcapitalpunishmentisconsideredtobedifferent,inkindanddegree

fromthesentenceofimprisonmentandhence,thiscannotbethebasisto

examinetheprincipleofproportionality.Healsorelieduponthe

observationsmadeinpara53ofthesaiddecision,whereintheApexCourt

hasheldthatdiscretiontochooseoneofthetwosentencesistobe

exercisedbytheCourtjudiciously,keepinginmindtheprinciple,that

deathsentenceisawardedonlyinthe’rarestofrarecase’.Hesubmitted

thatthelegalprovisionpermittingdeathsentencecannotbeseenperse,as

inhumanorbarbaric.LearnedASGalsoreliedonpara96ofthe

ConstitutionBenchjudgment,inV.Sriharan(supra),toshowthecrimes

forwhich,deathpenaltyandlifeisprescribed.Healsopointedoutthatin

theSectionIPC,thereareSectionslike120-B,121,132,194etc.,whichpermit

awardingofdeathsentenceasapunishment,eventhoughnodeathhas

occurred.

22.Mr.Singh,learnedASGrelieduponBachanSingh(supra),to

showhowtheApexCourtupheldtheconstitutionalityofdeathsentence.

HesubmitsthatSection302asalsoSection376-Earenotrequiredtostand

thetestofSectionArticle19(1)oftheConstitutionofIndia.Herelieduponthe

SQPathan25/117

:::Uploadedon-03/06/201904/06/201902:17:05:::
wp.1181.1182.14527.18.(J).doc

observationsinpara62ofBachanSingh(supra),toshowhowviciousand

perniciouscrimesaredistinguishedfromothertypesofcrime.Healso

pointedouttheobservationsoftheApexCourtinpara131ofthesaid

decisiontoshowthateffortsmadeintheParliamenttoabolishorrestrict

theareaofdeathpenaltyhadfailedandsubmitsthatthereasonsrecorded

bytheApexCourtinthesaidparaarevalideventoday,whenthevalidity

ofSection376-Eisbeingconsidered.

23.Ontheaspectofarbitrariness,learnedASGsubmitsthatSection

376-Eisasubstantiveprovision,whileSection211(7)ismerely

proceduralandhencetherecannotbeanycomparisonbetweenthetwo.

AccordingtothelearnedASG,undertheschemeofSection211(7)Cr.P.C,

thewords”subsequentoffence”referstoanoffencewhichisundera

separatetrial.Headds,thatsuchaseparatetrialneednotbesubsequentto

thefirsttrial.HesubmitsthateffortsofthepetitionerstouseSection376(2)

(n)ofSectionIPCtothrowlightonSection376-Emustbediscouragedandthatif

aninterpretationasurgedbythepetitionersisaccepted,theverypurpose

ofintroducingSection376-Ewouldstanddefeated.

SQPathan26/117

:::Uploadedon-03/06/201904/06/201902:17:05:::
wp.1181.1182.14527.18.(J).doc

24.LearnedASGsubmitsthatSection376-Edoesnotmakedeath

mandatorybutitallowsthecompetentCourttochoosebetweenlife

imprisonmentwhichisforrestofone’snaturallifeorwithdeath,andhence

allnormsevolvedbytheApexCourt,inthisregard,governingthe

impositionofsuchpunishmentwillapply.Hesubmitsthatthedecisionof

theApexCourtinSaibanna(supra)relieduponbythepetitionershas

beendealtwithandexplainedinSantoshkumarBariyar(supra).He

reiteratesthatdeathisnottheonlyoptionavailableunderSection376-E,

andthatthedecisionoftheApexCourtinMithu(supra)willnotbe

applicableinthefacts.

SubmissionsofMr.Kumbhakoni,learnedAdvocateGeneral:

25.Mr.Kumbhakoni,learnedAdvocateGeneral(AG),while

adoptingtheargumentsofMr.Singh,learnedASG,submittedthatthevery

basisforadvancingthechallengeonthegroundofproportionalityresorted

tobythepetitionersismisconceived.Hesubmittedthattherecannotbeany

comparisonbetweenanoffenceofmurderandanoffenceofrape.

AccordingtothelearnedAG,rapehasveryseriousconsequences,

inasmuchas,thevictimthereafterremainsalivingcorpse.Hepointsout

SQPathan27/117

:::Uploadedon-03/06/201904/06/201902:17:05:::
wp.1181.1182.14527.18.(J).doc

thatunderSection299oftheIPC,intentionorknowledgeisamustfor

constitutinganoffenceofculpablehomicide,andthattheoffenceofmurder

isexplainedbypointingoutexceptionsfirst,however,thesameperspective

cannotbeadoptedvis-a-visrape,inasmuchas,theaccusedcannotpointout

lackofintentionorknowledge,astherearenoexceptions.Hepointsout

theunfortunateattackonanurse,andtheleadingjudgmentoneuthanasia

inthisregard.Hesubmitsthatmanywomenresorttosuicideorattemptto

commitit,asrapetakesoutthe”meaning”oflifeandthatlifethereafter,is

mechanicalandnotadelightfullife.Heinvitedourattentiontothe

decisionoftheSupremeCourtofUnitedStatesinCoker’scase(supra)to

showhowinpara48,theminorityverdicthasdescribedrapeandfoundit

asamoreseriousoffencebyobservingthatitisdestructiveofawoman’s

personality.HereliedonthedecisioninSectionBodhisattwaGautamvs.Subhra

Chakraborty25,whereintheApexCourtinpara10,haspointedoutthe

effectsofrapeonthesocialstatusofwoman,ontheirpersonalityandwhy

rapeisthemosthatedcrimeandagainstSectionArticle21ofConstitutionofIndia.

HealsoreliedonthedecisioninDelhiDomesticWorkingWomen’s

SectionForumvs.UnionofIndia26,inparticular,paras13and14tosubmitthat

25(1996)1SCC490
261995(1)SCC14

SQPathan28/117

:::Uploadedon-03/06/201904/06/201902:17:05:::
wp.1181.1182.14527.18.(J).doc

theApexCourthadtakennoticeoftheincreasingviolenceagainstwomen

andtheseriousproblemposedbyit,inthecriminaljusticesystem.He

submitsthatasobservedtherein,thereallifeofvictimsislost.The

observationsinpara14arepressedintoservicetoshowhowvictimsof

rapereceiveinappropriateandinhumantreatment.He,therefore,submits

thattherecannotbeanymathematicalprecisioninselectionof

punishmentsandthesaidaspectmustbeleftforthelegislaturetolegislate.

Accordingtohim,thereportofLordMacaulayin1860andthereasons

givenbyhimfornotselectingdeathasapunishmentforrapearenot

germane,inviewofthelatersocialandlegaldevelopments.Mr.

Kumbhakoni,learnedAGalsoreliedonthedecisionoftheApexCourtin

SectionMukeshandAnr.vs.State(NCTofDelhi)andOrs.27,inparticular,paras

372,496,497,505,509and510.Hesubmitsthataspertheratioof

crimesappearinginpara372,thereisamanifoldriseinrapecasesas

againsttheoffenceofmurder.HesubmittedthattheApexCourtinpara496

approvedtheemphasisonmakingthesentencingprocessaprincipledone,

ratherthanaJudge-centricone.AccordingtothelearnedAG,thetests

appliedbytheCourtlike”CrimeTest”,”CriminalTest”and”rarestofthe

27(2017)6SCC1

SQPathan29/117

:::Uploadedon-03/06/201904/06/201902:17:05:::
wp.1181.1182.14527.18.(J).doc

rarecasetest”arealsolookedintowhileawardingsentenceofdeath,in

casesofoffencesagainstwomen,childrenandagedpersons,wherethe

accusedisshowntohavenoremorse.Mr.Kumbhakonisubmitsthatin

casesofrape,itisnotonlyaquestionoftherightsofacriminalbutalso

therightsofavictimandthesocietyatlargewhichhavetobeconsidered.

Headdsthattheoffenceofrapeisgraveandaseriousoneandhence,

legislature,initswisdom,thoughtitfittointroduceSection376-Einthe

SectionIPCandhencethesamemustnotbelightlydisturbedbyanyCourtof

law.

26.LearnedAGalsoreliedupontheobservationsoftheApexCourt

inShayaraBano(supra),inparticular,para101,toexplain,how

touchstoneofrealandmanifestarbitrarinessisrelevant,onlywhenthelaw

isquestionedonthegroundthatitisarbitrary.Healsorelieduponthe

observationsoftheApexCourtinVikramSingh(supra),inparticular,

para34,toshowthatwheretheParliamenthadprescribedalternative

sentences,itwasleftfortheCourtsconcernedtoawardwhatisconsidered

suitableinthefactsandcircumstancesofagivencase,andthatthe

parliamentarywisdomunderlyingitmustbehonoured.

SQPathan30/117

:::Uploadedon-03/06/201904/06/201902:17:05:::
wp.1181.1182.14527.18.(J).doc

27.Mr.KumbhakonialsorelieduponVikramSingh(supra),in

particularpara52tosubmitthatprovisionsoflegislationmustprevailand

Courtscannotinterferewiththeprescribedpunishment,onlybecausethe

punishmentisperceivedtobeexcessive.Hefurtheraddsthatthe

discussioninpara54ofthesaidjudgmentwouldalsoapplytothe

challengetoSection376-E,thatdeathsentencecanbeawardedonlyinthe

rarestofrarecase.HealsoreliedontheApexCourtdecisionin

SectionBhanumatiandOrs.vs.StateofU.P28,inparticular,paras82and86ofthe

saidjudgment.ThedecisioninSectionSushilKumarSharmavs.UnionofIndia29

isalsoreliedupontoshowthatmerepossibilityofabuseofpower

conferredbylawcannotmakeSection376-Eunconstitutional.He

emphasizedthedifferencebetween”action”and”section”speltoutinthis

judgment.HethereafterplacedrelianceonBachanSingh(supra),in

particular,para175,toshowhowCourtsmustrespectthelegislatureand

thelaw.HesubmittedthattheApexCourthasobservedthat,`Thehighest

judicialdutyistorecognizethelimitsonjudicialpowerandtopermitthe

democraticprocessestodealwithmattersfallingoutsideofthoselimits.’

28(2010)12SCC1

29(2005)6SCC281

SQPathan31/117

:::Uploadedon-03/06/201904/06/201902:17:05:::
wp.1181.1182.14527.18.(J).doc

Para36inDeena(supra)isalsoreliedupontourgethattheCourtscannot

bemadeathirdchamberofthelegislature.

28.WhilechallengingtheveryfoundationtoassailSection376-E

oftheIPConthegroundofproportionality,Mr.Kumbhakoni,learneedAG,

drawssupportfromthedecisionoftheApexCourtinSectionStateofRajasthan

vs.KherajRam30,inparticularparas36,37and38thereof.Hesubmitsthat

generallytheprincipleofproportionalityinprescribingliabilityaccording

toculpabilityforeachkindofcriminalconductisadheredtoincriminal

lawandtherecannotbecomparisonbetweenthepunishmentsprescribed

fortwooffences,whichareofadifferentnature.ThedecisionoftheApex

CourtinSectionGopalSinghvs.StateofUttarakhand31isalsopressedinto

serviceforthispurpose.Hearguesthat`justpunishment’isthecryofthe

Societyandthatproportionalitycannotbedecidedbymathematical

precision.Hesubmitsthatthelegislature,insuchasituation,confers

discretionontheJudgewhoisguidedbycertainrationalparameters,

regardbeinghadtothefactualscenarioofaparticularcase,astowhether

deathpenaltyistobeawardedornot.LearnedAGreliesonthedecisionof

30(2003)8SCC224
31(2013)7SCC545

SQPathan32/117

:::Uploadedon-03/06/201904/06/201902:17:05:::
wp.1181.1182.14527.18.(J).doc

theApexCourtinSectionVinaySharmavs.StateofNCTofDelhi32,inparticular,

paras24and25therein,tosubstantiatethissubmission.Headdsthat

Section376-EhasbeeninsertedintheStatuteBookafterduedeliberation

andproperapplicationofmindandthattheexpertsaswellasthe

ParliamentaryCommitteehaslookedintothesame.LearnedAGalso

submitsthatSection376-Edoesnotcreateafreshoranewoffenceand

thatitisaprovisionwhichonlydealswithpunishmentforrepeatoffenders.

HeclaimsthatbecauseofthemandateofSection211(7)ofCr.P.C.,a

separatechargeisrequiredtobeframedinrespectofanearlierconviction

toruleoutanyprejudicetotheaccused.

SubmissionsofMr.AabadPonda,learnedAmicusCuriae:

29.Mr.Ponda,learnedamicuscuriaesubmitsthatSection376-E

cannotbeseenasprescribinganalienpunishmentandthattheingredients

andchronologynecessarytoattractSection75ofIPCandSection376-E

arethesame.HepointsoutthatSection376-Edoesnotemploytheword

“enhanced”unlikeSection31ofNDPSAct,wherethatwordhasbeen

used.HesubmitsthatSection376-Eprescribesonlyadifferentpunishment

32(2018)8SCC186

SQPathan33/117

:::Uploadedon-03/06/201904/06/201902:17:05:::
wp.1181.1182.14527.18.(J).doc

forrepeatoffence.HefurthersubmitsthatSectionIPChasbeenextensively

amendedagain,after2013,i.e.witheffectfrom14thAugust2018,by

addingSections376-ABasalso376-DB,wherepunishmentofdeathhas

beenprescribedforthefirstoffenceitself.Hesubmitsthatthese

amendmentsshowthewillofthepeopleandwhenforfirstoffencesucha

punishmentisnotunconstitutional,itcannotbeviewedasunconstitutional

whenitisalsomadeavailableforarepeatoffence.Hefurthersubmitsthat

Section376(2)(n)providesfortheunfortunatecontingencyinwhichthere

areseveralrapes,withoutanyconvictioninbetweenthem.

30.Hesubmittedthatin2014,legislatureamendedSectiontheCodeof

CriminalProcedure,byaddingeightSectionsthereinandthatsuitable

amendmentshavebeenmadetoSections24,Section154,Section161,Section164,Section173,Section197,Section327

andSection357-CtobringitinharmonywithSection376-EandthatSections

53AandSection146ofEvidenceActhavealsobeenamended.

31.HesubmitsthatthedecisioninMaruRam(supra)reliedupon

bythepetitioners,inparticular,para19,showswhySection433-Aof

Cr.P.C.wasintroducedi.e.toensurethatcommutationoflifesentence

SQPathan34/117

:::Uploadedon-03/06/201904/06/201902:17:05:::
wp.1181.1182.14527.18.(J).doc

shallnotreducetheactualdurationofimprisonmentbelow14years.He

submitsthattheConstitutionBenchjudgmentinV.Sriharan(supra),in

paras89and92hasalsoreferredtoSection376-E.Healsoreliedupon

para62,wherein,itislaiddownthatthereisnoquestionofalifeconvict

gettinganyremissionunderSection432or433A,unlesstheperiodoflife

imprisonmentiscommutedtoapunishmentforafixedperiodoftimeasthe

conceptoflifeimprisonmentmeanstilltheremainderoflife.Herelies

upontheApexCourtjudgmentinSwamyShraddananda(2)aliasSectionMurali

ManoharMishravs.StateofKarnataka33forthispurpose.

32.Comingtothecontentionofthepetitioners,thatthe

punishmentofdeathcanbeimposedwhenduringthecrimeoroffence,a

deathoccurs,Mr.PondapointsoutcertainSectionsintheSectionIPC,like

Sections121,Section132,Section195A,Section194andSection307(2)wherethoughthereisnodeath

caused,sentenceofdeathcanbeawarded.Hesubmitsthatafterthe2018

amendment,thelistofsuchoffencesintheSectionIPChasgoneupto33.

33(2008)13SCC767

SQPathan35/117

:::Uploadedon-03/06/201904/06/201902:17:05:::
wp.1181.1182.14527.18.(J).doc

33.Inthisbackdrop,Mr.PondareliesupontheDivisionBench

judgmentofthisCourtinSectionIndianHarmReductionNetworkvs.Unionof

IndiaandOrs.34,inparticular,paras88and89tosubmitthattheword

“shall”therein,hasbeenreadas”may”andthattheconstitutionalityof

Section31-AoftheNDPSAct,prescribingpunishmentofdeathhasbeen

upheld.Wemaynotehere,thatthesaidprovisionhasthereafterbeen

amended.

34.Mr.Pondacommenteduponthejudgmentcitedbythe

petitionerinthecaseofKennedy(supra)toshowhowtherapeofa8year

oldgirlbyherstepfatherhasbeendealtwithandtheamendment

prohibitingdeathpenaltyforthesaidoffence.Hehasalsoinvitedour

attentiontothesaidEighthamendmentandrelevanthistoryincluding

variousjudgmentslookedintotherein.Hesubmitsthattheopinionofthe

CourtsintheUSshowsthatthesaidcrimei.e.ofrapehasbeenseenasa

crimeagainsttheindividual,whilstinIndiatheoffenceisviewednotonly

asacrimeagainsttheindividualbutalsoasacrimeagainstthesociety.

Learnedamicuscuriaehasalsoattemptedtoshowthefactualerrorinthe

caseofKennedy(supra)withreferencetotheobservationsthatrapewasa
342011(4)AIRBomR657

SQPathan36/117

:::Uploadedon-03/06/201904/06/201902:17:05:::
wp.1181.1182.14527.18.(J).doc

capitaloffenceinonlysixStates.We,however,inthepresentmatter,donot

finditnecessarytodelveintothataspect.

35.Mr.PondaheavilyreliedonanddrewourattentiontotheApex

CourtdecisioninSectionStateofHimachalPradeshvs.AshaRam35inparticular,

para22toshowthattheoffenceofrapeisgraverinnatureandmore

heinousthanmurder.ThejudgmentreportedinBodhisattwaGautam

(supra),inparticularpara10isalsorelieduponforthispurpose.

36.Mr.Pondasubmitsthatlawrequiresfirstaconvictionandthen

anoffenceandanotherconvictionforit,toattractSection376-E.Learned

amicuscuriaereliedupontheobservationsmadeinV.Sriharan’scase

(supra)inpara97tourgethattheextremepunishmentofdeathprescribed

forcrimesofthebrutestnatureisupheldandsubmitsthatSection376-E

hasbeenincludedintheStatuteBookforthatpurposeonly.The

observationsinparas98and99arereliedupontostatethatthelawmakers

havetoprescribepunishmentsandleaveittotheCourtstochooseone.He

alsoheavilyreliesuponparas101and102tourgethatthepunishmentis

prescribedintheSectionIPC,whileitsproceduralpartisdealtwithinSectionCr.P.C.and
352005(13)SCC766

SQPathan37/117

:::Uploadedon-03/06/201904/06/201902:17:05:::
wp.1181.1182.14527.18.(J).doc

thatboththeselawsarenotinconflictwitheachother.Healsopointsout

howinpara101,themajorityviewinV.Sriharan(supra)findsthatthe

proceduralprovisionscontainedinSectionCr.P.C.relatingtograntofremission,

commutation,suspensionorconstitutionalfunctionsunderArticles72and

162cannotbeheldtobeorcaninanymanneroverlapthepower,already

exercisedbytheCourtsofJustice.

37.Healsopointsoutthatthecontentionofthepetitioners,that

Section376-Emakesthesentenceofdeathmandatory,standsrefutedas

Section376-Eallowslifeimprisonmentwhichisforremainderofthat

person’snaturallifealso,asoneofthepunishments.Headdsthataconvict

hasnounfetteredrighttoclaimremissionandsubmitsthatasperthe

ConstitutionBench,noremissioncanbeclaimedtilltheminimumperiod

ofimprisonmentisover.

38.Mr.Pondarelieduponpara106ofV.Sriharan(supra)toshow

thattheratiolaiddowninSwamyShraddananda(2)(supra)imposinga

specialcategoryofsentenceinsteadofdeath,thereby,puttingthatcategory

beyondremission,hasbeenupheldandtheearlierviewofApexCourtin

SQPathan38/117

:::Uploadedon-03/06/201904/06/201902:17:05:::
wp.1181.1182.14527.18.(J).doc

thecaseofSectionSangeetandAnr.vs.StateofHaryana36,hasbeenspecifically

overruled.Hesubmittedthatthelawonthepointoflifeimprisonmentas

laiddowninGodse(supra)hasbeenreiteratedinV.Sriharan(supra).Our

attentionhasbeenalsoinvitedtotheminorityviewinthisrespect,inparas

273and286ofV.Sriharan(supra).

39.Whiledealingwiththeaspectofrepeatoffender,themeaning

giventothewords”firstoffender”,”habitualoffender”and”repeat

offender”inBlack’sLawDictionary,10thEditionispressedintoserviceto

showthatifsomeonewhohasbeenconvictedofthecrimemorethanonce,

thatperson,hasbeenheldtobearepeatoffender.

40.ThedecisionoftheApexCourtinSectionRajendraWasnikvs.State

ofMaharashtra37,inReviewPetition,inparticular,paras64to66,68,70

to72areheavilyreliedupontoshowhowthepriorhistoryoftheconvict

orcriminalantecedentsareseen/takenintoconsideration,whilstaffording

theconvictanopportunitytoreform.HesubmittedthattheApexCourt,in

thesaidcase,commutedthesentenceofdeathawardedtotheaccused

36(2013)2SCC452
37(2012)4SCC37

SQPathan39/117

:::Uploadedon-03/06/201904/06/201902:17:05:::
wp.1181.1182.14527.18.(J).doc

therein,withadirectionthatheshouldnotbereleasedfromcustodyforthe

restofhisnaturallife.Itissubmittedthattheobservationsmadebythe

ApexCourtinpara17wouldapplytoSection376-EIPCandshowthat

thesecondoffencehastobeafterthefirstconviction.Referencemadeby

theApexCourttothedecisionsoftheSupremeCourtofCanadainpara77

andoftheSupremeCourtofNorthernPartofAustraliainpara78arealso

reliedupontobuttresshissubmission,thatthesecondoffencemustbe

committedafterthefirstconviction.Theprincipleunderlyingitbeing,the

accuseddoesnotfacethejeopardyofanincreasedpenaltyunlesshehas

previouslybeenconvictedandsentenced.

CountersubmissionsofthelearnedASGandtheAG:

41.LearnedASG,Mr.SinghandlearnedAG,Mr.Kumbhakoni

advancedtheirargumentsbrieflyonthesubmissionsofMr.Ponda,learned

amicuscuriae.TheysubmitthatSection376-Eenvisagesonlytwoseparate

convictions.Theyalsoaddthatthereisnocontradictioninthestandof

UnionofIndiaandtheStateGovernmentonthequestionofadmissibility

ofremission.LearnedAGstatesthatthelanguageofSection376-Eisplain

andtherefore,mustbegiveneffectto.HereliesupontheConstitution

SQPathan40/117

:::Uploadedon-03/06/201904/06/201902:17:05:::
wp.1181.1182.14527.18.(J).doc

BenchdecisioninSectionCommissionerofCustoms(Import)Mumbaivs.Dilip

KumarandCompanyandOrs.38forthispurpose.Hefurtheraddsthat

Section376-Edoesnotconstitutean`offence’asdefinedinSection40IPC

orSection2(n)ofCr.P.C.Itissubmittedthatthemomenttwoconditions

arefulfilledi.e.(a)thereisapreviousconvictionforoneoftheoffence

mentionedinSection376-Eand(b)thesamepersonissubsequently

convictedofanyoffencementionedtherein,Section376-Egetsattracted

andassuch,nopositive”act”onthepartoftheaccusedisnecessary.

CountersubmissionsofDr.YugChaudhary:

42.Inreply,Dr.Chaudhary,learnedseniorcounselsubmitsthat

thereareatleastthreeConstitutionBenchdecisionswhichexplainthe

scopeofpunishmentofimprisonmentforlife.HesubmitsthatinSection

376-E,certainwordsqualifyingthispunishmenthavebeeninsertedand

theygiverisetoseriousissuesofambiguityandcreateconfusion,asto

whethertherightsofaconvictunderSection432or433SectionCr.P.C.are

curtailedornot.Hereliesupontheaffidavit-in-replyfiledbyUnionof

IndiainWritPetitionNo.527of2018,particularlyparas10and11therein

38(2018)9SCC1

SQPathan41/117

:::Uploadedon-03/06/201904/06/201902:17:05:::
wp.1181.1182.14527.18.(J).doc

toshowthatitexplainstheavailabilityofsucharight.Hepointsoutthat

thelearnedAGandthelearnedamicuscuriaeare,however,notagreeing

withlearnedASGinthisrespect.Hesubmitsthatthisconfusion,isitself

sufficienttostrikedownSection376-E.Hedrawssupportfromthe

judgmentsrelieduponbythelearnedamicuscuriaeforthispurpose.

43.Hearguesthatthoughtheconvicthasnorighttoclaim

remission,hecertainlyhastherighttoapplyforitandtohavehis

applicationconsideredandthatthesaidrightcannotbekilledsub-silentio.

HeagaininvitesourattentiontoSection31ofNDPSActtoshowhowit

expresslytakesawaysucharight.Headdsthatifsucharighttoapplyis

beingtakenawayinthismanner,theproceduremandatedbySectionArticle21is

notsatisfied.Hestatesthateverylaworchangethereinmustbeknownto

allconcernedinadvanceandthattheCourtssettlingsuchconfusion

inherentinthelaw,aftertheincidentoroffence,maytantamountto

rewritinglegislation.

44.Toanswerthequestion,whetherSection376-EofIPCpoints

outachangeintheperspectiveof”whydeath”to”whynotdeath”,herelies

SQPathan42/117

:::Uploadedon-03/06/201904/06/201902:17:05:::
wp.1181.1182.14527.18.(J).doc

uponSection367(5)ofCr.P.C.prevalentin1898andthethenstatutory

requirementofaCourtgivingreasonsfornotinflictingdeathpunishment.

HepointedoutthepositionbeforetheamendmentofSection367(5)Cr.P.C.

bySectiontheCriminalProcedureCodeSection(Amendment)Act,1955(Act26of1955)

whichcameintoforceonJanuary1,1956andsubmitsthattheCourt,has

nowtorecordverystrongreasonsforawardingdeathsentence.Heclaims

thatSection376-EofIPCindirectlyrestorestheearlierpositionandcannot

standevenonthisground.Tosubstantiatethissubmission,hedraws

supportfrompara147andotherparasinBachanSingh(supra).

45.HesubmitsthattheoffencefallingunderSection376-Ecannot

beequatedwitheitherwagingofwarormutiny.Hepointedoutthatthe

ApexCourtinVikramSingh(supra)upheldtheconstitutionalvalidityof

Section364(A)ofIPCandthatthesamehasbeenapprovedbythe

ConstitutionBenchinV.Sriharan(supra).Hesubmitsthatdeathpenaltyis

tobeimposedonlywhenduringthecommissionofacrime,deathtakes

placeandnototherwise.Para54ofVikramSingh(supra)isrelieduponby

himforthispurpose.

SQPathan43/117

:::Uploadedon-03/06/201904/06/201902:17:05:::
wp.1181.1182.14527.18.(J).doc

46.ComingtotheobservationsoftheApexCourtinV.Sriharan

(supra),hearguesthattheseobservationsdonotlaydownanylaw

relevantforthepresentcontroversy.HereiterateshowprovisionsofSection

219andSection220ofCr.P.C.canbemisusedinacase,resultinginprosecutorial

discrimination.

47.WhiledealingwiththedecisionoftheApexCourtinRajendra

Wasnik(supra),hesubmitsthatthesaidcasewasconcernedwithoffences

priortotheadditionofSection376-EtotheStatuteBook,andthatin

review,Section376-Ehasonlybeennoted.Hecontendsthatthusthe

observationstherein,donotlaydownthelawonSection376-E.He

pointsoutthatthesaiddecisionismoreontheapproachofawelfarestate

towardsthevictim.

REASONING

48.Wehaveheardthelearnedseniorcounselforthepartiesandthe

learnedamicuscuriaeatlengthandhavegonethroughthejudgmentscited

byeachofthem.Althoughseveraljudgmentswerecitedbeforeus,wewill

dealwithonlythosejudgments,asarerelevantfordecidingthesepetitions.

SQPathan44/117

:::Uploadedon-03/06/201904/06/201902:17:05:::
wp.1181.1182.14527.18.(J).doc

Beforeweproceedtodealwiththesubmissionsadvancedbytheparties,it

wouldbenecessarytoconsidertheparameterslaiddownbytheApex

Court,whichCourtsmustbearinmind,whileexaminingthevalidityofany

Statute.SectionInStateofBiharandOrs.vs.BiharDistilleryLimited39,the

ApexCourtinpara17,haslaiddowncertainprinciples,tobebornein

mindwhilejudgingtheconstitutionalityofanenactment.TheApexCourt

held,thattheapproachoftheCourts,whileexaminingthechallengetothe

constitutionalityofanenactment,(a)istostartwiththepresumptionof

constitutionality;(b)tosustainthevalidityoftheimpugnedlawtothe

extentpossibleandshouldstrikedowntheenactmentonlywhenitis

impossibletosustainit;(c)nottoapproachtheenactmentwithaviewto

pickholesortosearchfordefectsofdraftingorforthelanguageemployed,

muchlessinexactitudeoflanguageemployed;(d)considerthattheAct

madebythelegislaturerepresentsthewillofthepeopleandthatcannotbe

lightlyinterferedwith;(e)strikedowntheAct,onlywhenthe

unconstitutionalityisplainlyandclearlyestablished;and,(f)Courtsmust

recognizethefundamentalnatureandimportanceoflegislativeprocessand

accorddueregardanddeferencetoit.

39(1997)2SCC453
SQPathan45/117
:::Uploadedon-03/06/201904/06/201902:17:05:::

wp.1181.1182.14527.18.(J).doc
49.Infact,inthesaidcasei.e.BiharDistilleryLimited(supra),the
ApexCourtalsoconsideredtheperceptiveobservationsofLordDenningin
SeafordCourtEstatesLtd.vs.Asher40highlightingthejobofajudgein
construingaStatute.LordDenningobservedthatajudgemustproceedon
theconstructivetaskoffindingtheintentionofParliamentandhemustdo
thisnotonlyfromthelanguageoftheStatute,butalsofroma
considerationofthesocialconditionswhichgaverisetoitandofthe
mischiefwhichitwaspassedtoremedy,andthenifnecessary,hemust
supplementthewrittenwordsoastogive'forceandlife'totheintentionof
thelegislature.AccordingtoLordDenning,theprincipleslaiddownin
Heydon'scase41wereoneofthesafestguides.TheApexCourtaccepted
theseprinciples.TheApexCourtinSectionDharamDuttandOrs.vs.Unionof
IndiaandOrs.42heldthatifthelegislatureiscompetenttopassaparticular
law,themotivewhichimpelledittoactisreallyirrelevant.Ifthelegislature
hascompetence,thequestionofmotivedoesnotariseatallandanyinquiry
intothemotivewhichpersuadedtheParliamentintopassingtheActwould
beofnouseatall.
40(1949)2KB481

4176ER637

42(2004)1SCC712
SQPathan46/117
:::Uploadedon-03/06/201904/06/201902:17:05:::

wp.1181.1182.14527.18.(J).doc
50.TheApexCourt(ConstitutionBench)inSectionStateofGujaratvs.
MirzapurMotiKureshiKassabJamatandOrs.43inpara39ofthesaid
judgmenthasreproducedtheratiosummedupinSectionPathummaandOrsvs.
StateofKerala44(sevenjudgebenchdecision),whereinitisheldthatthe
legislatureisinthebestpositiontounderstandandappreciatetheneedsof
thepeopleasenjoinedintheConstitution,andthattheCourtswillinterfere
inthelegislativeprocessonlywhentheStatuteisclearlyviolativeofthe
rightsconferredonacitizenunderPartIIIoftheConstitution;orwhenthe
Actisbeyondthelegislativecompetenceofthelegislature.Itisfurther
observedthatCourtshaverecognizedthatthereisalwaysapresumptionin
favouroftheconstitutionalityoftheStatutesandtheonustoproveits
invalidityliesonthepartywhichassailsit.Thesamewasagainreiterated
bytheApexCourtinBhanumati(supra).


51.Inhistreatise,'PrinciplesofStatutoryInterpretation'Justice
G.P.Singhhaslucidlypointedouttheimportanceofconstructionof
StatutesinamodernStateasunder:
43(2005)8SCC534

441978AIR771
SQPathan47/117
:::Uploadedon-03/06/201904/06/201902:17:05:::

wp.1181.1182.14527.18.(J).doc
"LegislationinmodernStateisactuatedwithsome

policytocurbsomepublicevilortoeffectuatesomepublic

benefit.Thelegislationisprimarilydirectedtotheproblems

beforethelegislaturebasedoninformationderivedfrompast

andpresentexperience.Itmayalsobedesignedbyuseof

generalwordstocoversimilarproblemsarisinginfuture.But,

fromtheverynatureofthings,itisimpossibletoanticipatefully

thevariedsituationsarisinginfutureinwhichtheapplicationof

thelegislationinhandmaybecalledfor,and,wordschosento

communicatesuchindefinite"referents"areboundtobe,in

manycaseslackinginclarityandprecisionandthusgivingrise

tocontroversialquestionsofconstruction."


52.InCommissionerofCustoms(Import)(supra),theApexCourt
observedthatanActofParliament/Legislaturecannotforeseealltypesof
situationsandalltypesofconsequencesandthatitwasfortheCourttosee
whetheraparticularcasefallswithinthebroadprinciplesoflawenactedby
thelegislatureanditisinsuchcircumstances,thattheprinciplesof
interpretationofStatutescomeinhandy.Itisfurtherobservedthatinspite
ofthefactthatexpertsinthefieldassistindraftingtheActsandRules,
therearemanyoccasionswherethelanguageusedandthephrases
employedintheStatutearenotperfectandtherefore,JudgesandCourts
needtointerpretthewordsandthatthepurposeofinterpretationis
essentiallytoknowtheintentionofthelegislature.Itwasfurtherobserved
thatitwaswellacceptedthattheStatutemustbeconstruedaccordingto
SQPathan48/117
:::Uploadedon-03/06/201904/06/201902:17:05:::

wp.1181.1182.14527.18.(J).doc
theintentionofthelegislatureandthecourtsshouldactuponthetrue
intentionofthelegislaturewhileapplyingandinterpretinglawandthatifa
statutoryprovisionisopentomorethanonemeaning,theCourthasto
choosetheinterpretationwhichrepresentstheintentionofthelegislature.
53.Keepingtheaforesaidparametersinmindandbeforewe
proceedtoexaminethechallengesraisedtoSection376-E,itwouldalsobe
appositetoconsiderthehistoryandthebackground,whichnecessitatedthe
insertionofSection376-EintheSectionIPC.Infact,anyattempttoproperly
understandthetruescopeandpurportofSection376-Emust,inour
opinion,startwiththebackgroundinwhichtheprovisioncameonthe
StatuteBook.

OBJECTOFTHECRIMINALLAW(AMENDMENT)ACTOF2013
ANDINSERTIONOFSECTION376-E:

54.AsreflectedintheReportoftheDepartment-related
ParliamentaryStandingCommitteeonHomeAffairs,theMinistryof
HomeAffairsinitsbackgroundnotewhichwasfurnished,hasstatedthat
intheyear1997,Sakshi(NGO),anon-governmentalorganizationengaged
SQPathan49/117
:::Uploadedon-03/06/201904/06/201902:17:05:::

wp.1181.1182.14527.18.(J).doc
inempoweringwomen,hadfiledaWritPetitionintheSupremeCourtof
Indiaseeking,interalia,directionsconcerningdefinitionoftheexpression
'sexualintercourse'ascontainedinSection375oftheIndianPenalCode,
1860.TheSupremeCourtdirectedtheLawCommissionofIndiatofileits
responsewithrespecttotheissueraisedintheWritPetition.The
CommissionfiledanaffidavitinJuly1998.TheSupremeCourt,however,
directedSakshitodrawanotecontainingthepreciseissuesinvolvedinthe
petitionanddirectedtheLawCommissionofIndiatoexaminethesaid
issuesafresh.TheLawCommission,inits172ndReport,made
recommendationforwideningthescopeofrapeandtomakeitgender
neutral.


TheMinistryofHomeAffairsinthebackgroundnotehas
furtherstatedthatsincetheCriminalLawandtheCriminalProcedurewere
intheConcurrentListoftheSeventhScheduletotheConstitutionofIndia,
theReportoftheLawCommissionwasreferredtotheStateGovernments
fortheirviews/comments.TheStateGovernmentswereconsultedonthe
recommendationsmadebytheLawCommission.MostoftheState
GovernmentssupportedtheviewsoftheLawCommission.Thereafter,on
SQPathan50/117
:::Uploadedon-03/06/201904/06/201902:17:05:::

wp.1181.1182.14527.18.(J).doc
thebasisoftheLawCommission'sReport,theLegislativeDepartment
draftedaBill.Meanwhile,theNationalCommissionforWomen('NCW')
forwardedaseparateBillonthesamesubject.Accordingly,the
recommendationsoftheLawCommissionofIndia,thedraftBillprepared
bytheLegislativeDepartmentandtheBillforwardedbyNCWwere
discussedbythethenHomeMinisterwiththethenLawMinisterwherethe
thenChairperson,NCWwasalsopresent.Itwasstatedthatduringthe
discussion,theviewthatemergedwasthatvarioussexualoffences
specificallyrelatingtomalesandfemalesshouldbedifferentiatedandthe
crimeshouldremaingenderspecific,andtherefore,therecommendations
oftheLawCommissionwouldneedare-looktakingintoaccountthe
suggestionsmadebytheNCW.


TheMinistryfurtherstatedinthebackgroundnotethatthe
LegislativeDepartment,accordingly,havingregardtothesensitivityofthe
subject,wasrequestedtorevisethedraftBilltakingintoconsiderationthe
abovesuggestions.ItwasalsorequestedthattherevisedBillshouldaddress
theexistinginadequaciesinthelawsrelatingtosexualoffencesandalso
provideformeasurestodealwiththesexualabuseofchildrenthrough
SQPathan51/117
:::Uploadedon-03/06/201904/06/201902:17:05:::

wp.1181.1182.14527.18.(J).doc
stringentprovisions.Accordingly,theLegislativeDepartmentprepareda
revisedBill.TheNCWrecommendedsomechangesrelatingto'rape'inits
AnnualReport2004-05.SincetheCriminalLawandtheCriminal
ProcedurewereintheConcurrentListoftheSeventhScheduletothe
ConstitutionofIndiaandthelawsarealsobeingadministered/implemented
bytheStateGovernments/UnionTerritoryAdministrations,theirviews
weresoughtontherecommendationsmadebytheNCWinitsaforesaid
Report.Inordertogetaquickerresponse,aConferenceoftheHome
SecretariesoftheStateGovernmentsandUnionTerritoryAdministrations
wasconvenedon7thJuly,2008inDelhitodiscussthematterrelatingto
rape/sexualassault.Therewasnoagreementastotheamendmentsthat
shouldbecarriedoutinSectionIPC,SectionCr.P.C.andtheSectionIndianEvidenceAct.
InthebackgroundnoteontheBill,theMinistryofHome
Affairshasstatedthatasthesubjectmatterrelatingtorapeissensitivein
nature,itwasdecidedthattheBillonrapelawsmaybefinalizedafteranin
depthconsultationwithallconcerned.Therefore,aHighPowered
Committee('HPC')wasconstitutedon29thJanuary,2010underthe
ChairmanshipoftheformerUnionHomeSecretarycomprisingSecretary,
SQPathan52/117
:::Uploadedon-03/06/201904/06/201902:17:05:::

wp.1181.1182.14527.18.(J).doc
MinistryofWomenandChildDevelopment;Secretary,Departmentof
LegalAffairs;Secretary,LegislativeDepartment;MemberSecretary,NCW;
MemberSecretary,LawCommissionofIndia;SpecialSecretary,Ministry
ofHomeAffairs('MHA')andConsultant(Judl.),MHAasmembers,to
examinetheissuerelatingtothereviewofrapelaws.TheHPCdiscussed
thematterinitsmeetingsheldon12thFebruary,2010and15thMarch,2010.
ThesuggestionsmadebytheHPCwereformulatedintoadraftCriminal
Law(Amendment)Bill,2010whichwasreferredtotheStateGovernments
fortheircomments/views.ThedraftBillwasalsopostedonthewebsiteof
theMHAforcommentsofthegeneralpublic.TheHPCaftergoingintothe
commentsreceivedfromthevariousindividualsandNGOs,theState
Governmentsandalsoafterfurtherconsultationamongstitsmemberson
10thAugust,2010,4thOctober,2010and8thFebruary,2011finalizedits
reportalongwiththedraftCriminalLaw(Amendment)Bill,2011and
recommendedittotheGovernmentforitsenactment.
TheCommitteewasfurtherapprisedthattheprovisionsofthe
draftCriminalLaw(Amendment)Bill,2011asformulatedbytheHPC,
werefurtherexaminedintheMHAinconsultationwithLegislative
SQPathan53/117
:::Uploadedon-03/06/201904/06/201902:17:05:::

wp.1181.1182.14527.18.(J).doc
Department,MinistryofLawandJustice.Afternecessarymodifications,
theLegislativeDepartmentprovidedareviseddraftCriminalLaw
(Amendment)Bill,2012.Afterconsultationwithotherstakeholderslike
MinistryofLawandJusticeandMinistryofWomenandChild
Development,aCabinetNoteon"Reviewoflegalprovisionspertainingto
sexualassault-ProposaltoamendSectiontheIndianPenalCode,1860,SectiontheCode
ofCriminalProcedure,1973andtheSectionIndianEvidenceAct,1872"was
finalizedandsenttotheCabinetforconsiderationon2ndJuly,2012.The
Cabinetconsideredthenoteon19thJuly,2012andapprovedtheproposalof
introductionoftheBilli.e.theCriminalLaw(Amendment)Bill,2012in
theParliament.Although,theBillwasintroducedintheLokSabhaon4th
December,2012,itappearsthatinpursuancetotherulesrelatingtothe
Department-relatedParliamentaryStandingCommittees,theChairman,
RajyaSabha,inconsultationwiththeSpeaker,LokSabhareferredthe
CriminalLaw(Amendment)Bill,2012,asintroducedon4thDecember,
2012intheLokSabhaandpendingtherein,totheCommitteeon28th
December,2012forexaminationandreportwithinthreemonths.
SQPathan54/117
:::Uploadedon-03/06/201904/06/201902:17:05:::

wp.1181.1182.14527.18.(J).doc
AfterthegruesomeincidentthattookplaceinDelhion16th
December2012i.e.theNirbhayacase,therewaspublicoutrageand
outcry,whichledtotheformationofaCommitteeheadedbyJusticeJ.S.
Verma.TheCommitteesoconstitutedwasset-upwiththeobjectofmaking
recommendationsforamendingthelaws,todealwithcrimesagainst
women,forenhancingpunishmentforoffendersincasesofsexualassault
ofextremenatureandforprovidingspeedyjustice.JusticeVerma
CommitteesubmitteditsReporttotheGovernment(recommendations)on
23rdJanuary2013,afterhearingthestakeholdersonthesaidsubject.The
Department-RelatedParliamentaryStandingCommitteeonHomeAffairs,
afterconsideringthereportsubmittedbyJusticeVermaCommittee,report
oftheMHA,172ndReportonReviewofRapeLawsofLawCommissionof
India,TheCriminalLaw(Amendment)Bill,2012,TheCriminalLaw
(Amendment)Ordinance,2013,CommentsoftheMHAonthememoranda
receivedfromindividuals/public,women'sorganizations,NGOs,
suggestionsofState/UTGovernmentsandMembersofParliamentandthe
Committeeandsoon,preparedaReportdated26thFebruary2013.The
Committeevidethesaidreport,feltitnecessarytobringtherevisedlaws
intoeffectasexpeditiouslyaspossible.

SQPathan55/117
:::Uploadedon-03/06/201904/06/201902:17:05:::

wp.1181.1182.14527.18.(J).doc
TheCommittee,initsmeetingheldon21stFebruary,2013,
heldaclause-by-clauseconsiderationoftheBill.TheCommitteedecidedto
considertheBillclause-by-clauseinthelightoftheprovisionsofthe
OrdinancepromulgatedbytheGovernment.WhilediscussingSection
376-A,someMembersfeltthattheGovernmentwillhavetotakeadecision
regardingdeathpenalty.Itwasstatedthatseveralcountrieshadabolished
deathpenaltywhereasIndiawascontinuingwithit.However,majorityof
theMembersfeltthattheissueofabolishingdeathpenaltywascompletely
adifferentmatterandneededtobediscussedanddecidedseparately,and
thatsince,deathpenaltyexistedasondate,inthelaw,theCommittee
decidedthatitcannotrecommendabolishingofdeathpenalty.The
Committeealsotooknoteofthefact,thatdeathpenaltyisproposedin
Section376-Aonlyinanextremecase,wherethevictimhaddiedorgone
inavegetativestateandinSection376-Einthecaseofarepeatoffender.
Accordingly,majorityoftheMembersagreedtotheviewofaccepting
deathsentence.


TheCommitteetableditsreportintheParliament.Keepingin
viewtherecommendationsoftheDepartment-relatedParliamentary
SQPathan56/117
:::Uploadedon-03/06/201904/06/201902:17:05:::

wp.1181.1182.14527.18.(J).doc
StandingCommitteeonHomeAffairs,therecommendationsofJustice
VermaCommitteeandtheviewsandcommentsreceivedfromvarious
quartersincludingwomengroups,theGovernmentdraftedtheCriminal
Law(Amendment)Bill,2013.TheBillof2013soughttoamendtheSectionIPC,
SectionCr.P.C,theSectionIndianEvidenceActandProtectionofChildrenfromSexual
Offences('POCSO')Act.ThestatementofObjectsandReasons,ofthe
SectionCriminalLaw(Amendment)Act,2013readsasunder:
"TheCriminalLaw(Amendment)Bill,2012wasintroducedin
theLokSabhaon4thDecember,2012inordertoprovideforstringent
punishmentforcrimesagainstwomen,asalsotoprovideformorevictim
friendlyproceduresinthetrialsofsuchcases.Afterthehorrendous
incidentofgangrape,whichoccurredon16thDecember,2012inDelhi,a
Committee,headedbyJusticeJ.S.Vermawassetuptomake
recommendationsonamendingthevariouslawstoprovideforspeedy
justiceandenhancedpunishmentforoffendersincasesofsexualassaultof
extremenature.TheJusticeVermaCommitteesubmitteditsReporton23rd
January,2013.


SQPathan57/117
:::Uploadedon-03/06/201904/06/201902:17:05:::

wp.1181.1182.14527.18.(J).doc
2.Itwasfeltnecessarytobringtherevisedlawsintoeffectas
soonaspossible,asanycrimeagainstwomencommittedduringtheperiod
whenthelawisinmakingwillbepunishableonlyundertheexistinglaws.
Inviewoftheurgencyofthematter,theCriminalLaw(Amendment)
Ordinance,2013waspromulgatedon3rdFebruary,2013.
3.TheDepartment-relatedParliamentaryStandingCommitteeon
HomeAffairsexaminedtheCriminalLaw(Amendment)Bill,2012and
tableditsReportinParliamenton1stMarch,2013.Keepinginviewthe
recommendationsoftheDepartment-relatedParliamentaryStanding
CommitteeonHomeAffairs,therecommendationsofJusticeVerma
Committeeandtheviewsandcommentsreceivedfromvariousquarters
includingwomengroups,theGovernmentdraftedtheCriminalLaw
(Amendment)Bill,2013.


4.TheCriminalLaw(Amendment)Bill,2013seekstoamendSectionthe
IndianPenalCode,1860,SectiontheCriminalProcedureCode,1973,theSectionIndian
EvidenceAct,1872andtheProtectionofChildrenfromSexualOffences
SQPathan58/117
:::Uploadedon-03/06/201904/06/201902:17:05:::

wp.1181.1182.14527.18.(J).doc
Act,2012.Theseamendmentsseekto:-

(a)makespecificprovisionsforpunishmentfortheoffencesofcausing
grievoushurtbyacidattackandalsoforanattemptthereof;
(b)defineandprescribepunishmentfortheoffencesofstalking,voyeurism
andsexualharassment;

(c)widenthedefinitionofrape;broadentheambitofaggravatedrape;and
enhancethepunishmentthereof;

(d)prescribeforpunishmentextendingtothesentenceofdeath,foran
offencewhereinthecourseofcommissionofanoffenceofrape,the
offenderinflictsanyinjurywhichcausesthedeathofthevictimorcauses
thevictimtobeinapersistentvegetativestate;
(e)punishtherepeatoffendersofrapewithimprisonmentforlife,which
shallmeantheremainderoftheperson'snaturallife,orwithdeath;
(f)prescribepunishmentfortheoffenceofgangrapewithrigorous
imprisonmentforaminimumoftwentyyearsextendabletolife(whichshall
meantheremainderofthatperson'snaturallife)andfine;tobepaidtothe
victimtomeetthemedicalexpenses;

(g)enhancepunishmentunderSections354andSection509oftheIPC;
(h)makecorrespondingamendmentstocertainprovisionsintheSectionCr.P.C,
SQPathan59/117
:::Uploadedon-03/06/201904/06/201902:17:05:::

wp.1181.1182.14527.18.(J).doc
withtheobjectofprovidingwomenfriendlyprocedures;greatersensitivity
totherequirementofphysicallyandmentallydisabledpersons,under-aged
childrenandoldpersonsinthecourseofinvestigationandtrial;forspeedy
trialofrapecases,andbetterrecordingofevidence;
(i)providethatallhospitalsshallimmediatelyprovidefirstaidand/or
medicaltreatment,freeofcost,tothevictimsofacidattackorrape;and
provideforpunishmentforcontraventionthereof;
(j)provideforcompensationpayablebytheState,inadditiontothe
paymentoffinetothevictim;

(k)tomakecorrespondingamendmentsintheIndianEvidenceActinorder
toprotectthedignityofwomen;and
(l)amendPOCSOsoastoharmonisethesaidActwiththeprovisionsof
theBill."

(emphasissupplied)
AperusalofthestatementofObjectsandReasonsofthe
CriminalLaw(Amendment)Act,2013,clearlyshowstheobjectbehind
introducingnewoffences,gradationofpunishment,introductionofharsher
punishmentetc.ApartfromtheSectionCriminalLaw(Amendment)Actof2013,a
specialActwasenactedtoprotectthechildrenfromsexualabuse.Under
SQPathan60/117
:::Uploadedon-03/06/201904/06/201902:17:05:::

wp.1181.1182.14527.18.(J).doc
thePOCSOAct,theterm`child'isgenderneutralandthepunishmentis
stringent.ThereareseveralpresumptionsunderthesaidAct,whichcastan
obligationontheaccusedtoprovehiscaseandthereareprovisionsasto
howthecaseistobeinvestigatedaswellasconducted,keepinginmindthe
sensitivenatureofthecases.


55.Therivalcontentionsofthepartiesdetailedsupraneed
appreciationinthisbackground.Havingheardthelearnedseniorcounsel
andthelearnedamicuscuriaeandkeepinginmindthebroadparameters
laiddownbytheApexCourt,whilstconsideringtheconstitutionalvalidity
ofaStatute,inthiscase,theconstitutionalvalidityofSection376-E,and
thebackgroundandcircumstancesinwhichSection376-Ewasinsertedin
theSectionCriminalLaw(Amendment)Act,2013,weareoftheconsidered
opinionthatSection376-EisnotultravirestheConstitutionandassuchis
notrequiredtobestruckdown,forthereasonswhichwillbedealtwith,in
detail,hereinunder.


56.Withregardtotheissue,whetherSection376-Ecreatesanew
categoryofpunishmenti.e.imprisonmentforlife,whichmeans
SQPathan61/117
:::Uploadedon-03/06/201904/06/201902:17:05:::

wp.1181.1182.14527.18.(J).doc
imprisonmentfortheremainderofone'snaturallife,ouranswerisinthe
negative.Dr.ChaudharyvehementlycontendedthatSection376-Ecreatesa
newcategoryofpunishmentunknowntoSectionIPC.HereliesonSection53of
theIPCinsupportofthesaidsubmission.Wemaynotethatthesaidissue
hasbeensettledbyacatenaofjudgments,withwhichwewilldealwith,in
somedetail.Butbeforewedealwiththesaidjudgments,itwouldbe
appositetoreproduceSection53andSection45ofIPCtounderstandthe
realpurportofthesaidsubmission.Section53andSection45ofIPC,read
thus;-

53.Punishments.--Thepunishmentstowhichoffendersareliable

undertheprovisionsofthisCodeare--

First--Death;

Secondly.--Imprisonmentforlife;

[***]

Fourthly.--Imprisonment,whichisoftwodescriptions,namely:--

(1)Rigorous,thatis,withhardlabour;

(2)Simple;

Fifthly.--Forfeitureofproperty;

Sixthly--Fine."

45."Life".--Theword"life"denotesthelifeofahuman

being,unlessthecontraryappearsfromthecontext."

SQPathan62/117
:::Uploadedon-03/06/201904/06/201902:17:05:::

wp.1181.1182.14527.18.(J).doc

57.Asfarasjudicialpronouncementsareconcerned,whichhavea
bearingonthisissue,itwouldbeappropriatetorefertothedecisionofthe
ApexCourtinGodse(supra),whereintheApexCourtheldthatasentence
ofimprisonmentforlifeisoneof`imprisonmentforthewholeofthe
remainingperiodoftheconvictedperson'snaturallife'.Godse'sjudgment
(supra)isanauthorityonthisproposition.TheApexCourtinMaruRam
(supra),inpara25,hasobservedasunder:

"25.Ordinarily,whereasentenceisforadefiniteterm,the

calculusofremissionsmaybenefittheprisonertoinstant-releaseat

thatpointwherethesubtractionresultsinzero.Here,weare

concernedwithlifeimprisonmentandsowecomeuponanother

conceptbearingonthenatureofthesentencewhichhasbeen

highlightedinGodse'scase.Wherethesentenceisindeterminate

andofuncertainduration,theresultofsubtractionfroman

uncertainquantityisstillanuncertainquantityandreleaseofthe

prisonercannotfollowexceptonsomefictionofquantificationofa

sentenceofuncertainduration.Godsewassentencedto

imprisonmentforlife.Hehadearnedconsiderableremissionswhich

wouldhaverenderedhimeligibleforreleasehadlifesentencebeen

equatedwith20yearsofimprisonmentalaSection55I.P.C.On

thebasisofarulewhichdidmakethatequation,Godsesoughthis

releasethroughawritpetitionunderSectionArticle52oftheConstitution.
HewasrebuffedbythisCourt.AConstitutionBench,speaking

throughSubbaRao,J.,tooktheviewthatasentenceof

imprisonmentforlifewasnothinglessandnothingelsethanan

imprisonmentwhichlastedtillthelastbreath.Sincedeathwas

uncertain,deductionbywayofremissiondidnotyieldanytangible

dateforreleaseandsotheprayerofGodsewasrefused.Thenature

ofalifesentenceisincarcerationuntildeath,judicialsentenceof

imprisonmentforlifecannotbeinjeopardymerelybecauseof

longaccumulationofremissions.Releasewouldfollowonlyupon

anorderunderSection401oftheCriminalProcedureCode,1898
SQPathan63/117
:::Uploadedon-03/06/201904/06/201902:17:05:::

wp.1181.1182.14527.18.(J).doc
(correspondingtoSection432ofthe1973Code)bythe

appropriateGovernmentoronaclemencyorderinexerciseof

powerunderArticles72or161oftheConstitution.Godse(supra)

isauthorityforthepropositionthatasentenceofimprisonment

forlifeisoneof"imprisonmentforthewholeoftheremaining

periodoftheconvictedperson'snaturallife"...............
(emphasissupplied)
58.ThesameisagainreiteratedbytheApexCourtinSectionLaxman
Naskar(LifeConvict)vs.StateofWestBengal45,andinSectionJayawant
DattatraySuryaraoandOrs.vs.StateofMaharashtra.46InSwamy
Shraddananda(2)(supra),theApexCourtreferringtothelegalpositionas
enunciatedinKishoriLalvs.Emperor47,Godse(supra),MaruRam
(supra),SectionStateofMadhyaPradeshvs.RatanSingh48andSectionShriBhagwan
vs.StateofRajasthan49,inparas91and92,recognisedtherighttoimpose
apunishmentbeyondmerelifeimprisonment,bytermingitasa`special
categorycase',wheredeathsentenceisconsideredtobetooexcessiveand
merelifeimprisonmentinadequate,bytakingintoconsiderationthemanner
inwhichremissionswereallowedincaseswherelifeimprisonmentwas
awardedandhowconvictswerebeingreleasedprematurely,oncompletion
of14years,ontheirsentencebeingcommuted.SwamyShraddananda(2)

45(2000)7SCC626

46(2001)10SCC109

47AIR(32)1945PC64

48(1976)3SCC470

49(2001)6SCC296
SQPathan64/117
:::Uploadedon-03/06/201904/06/201902:17:05:::

wp.1181.1182.14527.18.(J).doc
(supra)wasfirstsuchcasecreatingaspecialcategoryofsentencei.e.
imprisonmenttillremainderofone'slife.


Inparas92to94ofthesaidjudgment,itisobservedasunder:
"92.Themattermaybelookedatfromaslightlydifferent

angle.Theissueofsentencinghastwoaspects.Asentencemaybe

excessiveandundulyharshoritmaybehighlydisproportionately

inadequate.WhenanappellantcomestothisCourtcarryingadeath

sentenceawardedbythetrialcourtandconfirmedbytheHigh

Court,thisCourtmayfind,asinthepresentappeal,thatthecase

justfallsshortoftherarestoftherarecategoryandmayfeel

somewhatreluctantinendorsingthedeathsentence.Butatthesame

time,havingregardtothenatureofthecrime,theCourtmay

stronglyfeelthatasentenceoflifeimprisonmentthatsubjectto

remissionnormallyworksouttoatermof14yearswouldbegrossly

disproportionateandinadequate.WhatthentheCourtshoulddo?If

theCourt'soptionislimitedonlytotwopunishments,oneasentence

ofimprisonment,forallintentsandpurposes,ofnotmorethan14

yearsandtheotherdeath,thecourtmayfeeltemptedandfinditself

nudgedintoendorsingthedeathpenalty.Suchacoursewould

indeedbedisastrous.Afarmorejust,reasonableandpropercourse

wouldbetoexpandtheoptionsandtotakeoverwhat,asamatterof

fact,lawfullybelongstothecourt,i.e.,thevasthiatusbetween14

years'imprisonmentanddeath.Itneedstobeemphasizedthatthe

Courtwouldtakerecoursetotheexpandedoptionprimarily

becauseinthefactsofthecase,thesentenceof14years

imprisonmentwouldamounttonopunishmentatall.
93.Further,theformalisationofaspecialcategoryof

sentence,thoughforanextremelyfewnumberofcases,shallhave

thegreatadvantageofhavingthedeathpenaltyonthestatutebook

buttoactuallyuseitaslittleaspossible,reallyintherarestofthe
SQPathan65/117
:::Uploadedon-03/06/201904/06/201902:17:05:::

wp.1181.1182.14527.18.(J).doc
rarecases.ThiswouldonlybeareassertionoftheConstitution

BenchdecisioninBachanSingh(supra)besidesbeinginaccord

withthemoderntrendsinpenology.


94.Inlightofthediscussionsmadeaboveweareclearlyof

theviewthatthereisagoodandstrongbasisfortheCourtto

substituteadeathsentencebylifeimprisonmentorbyatermin

excessoffourteenyearsandfurthertodirectthattheconvictmust

notbereleasedfromtheprisonfortherestofhislifeorforthe

actualtermasspecifiedintheorder,asthecasemaybe."
(emphasissupplied)
59.Itisworthwhiletonote,thatthesaiddecisionwasputtotest
andconsideredbytheConstitutionBenchinV.Sriharan(supra).The
ApexCourtinV.Sriharan(supra)heldthatsuchanimprisonmenti.e.
imprisonmentforremainderofone'slifefallswithinthepurviewof
Section53oftheIPC.Inpara61itisnotedthatimprisonmentforlifein
termsofSection53readwithSection45oftheIPC,meansimprisonment
fortherestofthelifeoftheprisonersubject,however,totherighttoclaim
remissionetc.,asprovidedunderSectionArticle72andSectionArticle161ofthe
ConstitutionandalsoasprovidedunderSection432oftheCr.P.C.Infact,
inpara89ofV.Sriharan(supra),theApexCourt,aftertakinginto
considerationseveraldecisions,includingtheConstitutionBenchdecision
inVikramSingh(supra),concludedthatitisnowhereprescribedinthe
SQPathan66/117
:::Uploadedon-03/06/201904/06/201902:17:05:::

wp.1181.1182.14527.18.(J).docSection
PenalCodeorforthatmatter,anyoftheprovisionswheredeathpenaltyor
lifeimprisonmentisprovidedfor,anyprohibitionfromimposing
imprisonmentforaspecificperiod,withinthesaidlifespan.Itisfurther
observedthat,`whenlifeimprisonmentmeansthewholelifespanofthe
personconvicted,canitbesaid,thattheCourtwhichisempoweredto
imposethesaidpunishmentcannotspecifytheperioduptowhich,thesaid
sentenceoflifeshouldremainbefittingthenatureofthecrimecommitted,
whileatthesametimeapplyingtherarestofrareprinciple,theCourts'
consciencedoesnotpersuadeittoconfirmthedeathpenalty.'
60.Itispertinenttonote,thatthesubmissioncanvassedby
Dr.Chaudharyinthesepetitionsthatanewcategoryofpunishmentis
soughttobecreatedi.e.imprisonmentforlife,whichmeansimprisonment
forremainderofone'snaturallife,hasbeenrepelledbytheApexCourtin
para90ofV.Sriharan(supra).Itiscategoricallyheldthatthereisno
violationofthestatutoryprovisionsprescribingtheextentofpunishment
providedinSectionthePenalCodeandthat,theCourthasnotcarvedoutanew
punishment.Itisfurtherobservedthatthenatureofpunishmenttobe
imposediswellwithintheprescribedlimitofpunishmentoflife
SQPathan67/117
:::Uploadedon-03/06/201904/06/201902:17:05:::

wp.1181.1182.14527.18.(J).doc
imprisonmentandthatthepunishmentwillbeawardedhavingregardtothe
natureofoffencecommittedandwouldbeproportionaltothecrimeaswell
astheinterestofthevictim,whoseinterestisalsotobetakencareofbythe
Court.Wemayobservehere,thatthespecialcategorycreatedbytheApex
CourtinSwamyShraddananda(2)(supra)hasstoodthescrutinyandtest
oftheConstitutionBenchinV.Sriharan(supra).
61.TheApexCourtinV.Sriharan(supra),furtherobservedthat
theprescriptionofdifferenttypesofpunishmentsinothercountrieswould
notdissuadethemfromdeclaringthelegalpositionbasedonthe
punishmentprescribedintheSectionIPCandtheenormityofthecrimesbeing
committedinthiscountry.Afternotinginpara96,thetwelvecrimesfor
whichthepenaltyofdeathandlifeisprescribed,andafternotinginpara
96.10,thepunishmentprescribedunderSection376-E,theApexCourtin
paras97to99inV.Sriharan(supra),hasobservedasunder:
"97.Thus,eachoneoftheoffencesabovenoted,forwhichthe

penaltyofdeathorlifeimprisonmentorspecifiedminimumperiod

ofimprisonmentisprovidedfor,areofsuchmagnitudeforwhich

theimpositionofanyoneofthesaidpunishmentprovidedfor

cannotbeheldtobeexcessiveornotwarranted.Ineach

individualcase,themannerofcommissionorthemodusoperandi
SQPathan68/117
:::Uploadedon-03/06/201904/06/201902:17:05:::

wp.1181.1182.14527.18.(J).doc
adoptedorthesituationsinwhichtheactwascommittedorthe

situationinwhichthevictimwassituatedorthestatusofthe

personwhosufferedtheonslaughtortheconsequencesthat

ensuedbyvirtueofthecommissionoftheoffencecommittedand

soonandsoforthmayvaryinverymanydegrees.Itwasforthis

reason,thelawmakers,whileprescribingdifferentpunishments

fordifferentcrimes,thoughtitfittoprescribeextremepunishments

forsuchcrimesofgrotesque(monstrous)nature.

98.Whilethatbesoitcannotalsobelostsightofthatitwill

benexttoimpossibleforeventhelawmakerstothinkofor

prescribeinexactitudeallkindsofsuchcriminalconducttofit

intoanyappropriatepigeonholeforstructuredpunishmentstorun

inbetweentheminimumandmaximumperiodofimprisonment.

Therefore,thelawmakersthoughtitfittoprescribetheminimum

andthemaximumsentencetobeimposedforsuchdiabolicnature

ofcrimesandleaveitfortheadjudicationauthorities,namely,the

InstitutionofJudiciarywhoisfullyandappropriatelyequipped

withthenecessaryknowledgeoflaw,experience,talentand

infrastructuretostudythedetailedpartsofeachsuchcasebased

onthelegallyacceptablematerialevidence,applythelegal

principlesandthelawonthesubject,apartfromtheguidanceit

getsfromthejuristsandjudicialpronouncementsrevealedearlier,

todeterminefromthenatureofsuchgraveoffencesfoundproved

anddependinguponthefactsnotedwhatkindofpunishment

withintheprescribedlimitsundertherelevantprovisionwould

appropriatelyfitin.Inotherwords,whilethemaximumextentof

punishmentofeitherdeathorlifeimprisonmentisprovidedfor

undertherelevantprovisionsnotedabove,itwillbeforthe

Courtstodecideifinitsconclusion,theimpositionofdeathmay

notbewarranted,whatshouldbethenumberofyearsof

imprisonmentthatwouldbejudiciouslyandjudiciallymore

appropriatetokeepthepersonunderincarceration,bytaking

intoaccount,apartfromthecrimeitself,fromtheangleofthe

commissionofsuchcrimeorcrimes,theinterestofthesocietyat

largeorallotherrelevantfactorswhichcannotbeputinany

straitjacketformulae.
99.Thesaidprocessofdeterminationmustbeheldtobe

availablewiththeCourtsbyvirtueoftheextentofpunishments
SQPathan69/117
:::Uploadedon-03/06/201904/06/201902:17:05:::

wp.1181.1182.14527.18.(J).doc
providedforsuchspecifiednatureofcrimesandsuchpoweristo

bederivedfromthosepenalprovisionsthemselves.Wemustalso

state,bythatapproach,wedonotfindanyviolationoflawor

conflictwithanyotherprovisionSectionofPenalCode,butthesame

wouldbeincomplianceofthoserelevantprovisionsthemselves

whichprovideforimpositionofsuchpunishments."

(emphasissupplied)
62.Thesameprincipleisreiteratedinpara101,wheresuchan
interpretationisheldtobeinharmonywiththeSectionCr.P.C.andtheSectionIPC.Para
101readsasunder:

"101.SuchprescriptioncontainedinSectiontheCodeofCriminal

Procedure,thoughprocedural,thesubstantivepartrestsinSectionthe

PenalCodefortheultimateConfirmationormodificationor

alterationoramendmentoramendmentofthepunishment.

Therefore,whatisapparentisthattheimpositionofdeathpenalty

orlifeimprisonmentissubstantivelyprovidedforinSectionthePenal

Code,proceduralpartofitisprescribedinSectiontheCodeofCriminal

Procedureandsignificantlyonedoesnotconflictwiththeother.

HavingregardtosuchadichotomybeingsetoutinSectionthePenalCode

andSectiontheCodeofCriminalProcedure,whichinmanyrespectstobe

operateduponintheadjudicationofacriminalcase,theresultof

suchthoroughlydefineddistinctivefeatureshavetobeclearly

understoodwhileoperatingthedefiniteprovisions,inparticular,

theprovisionsinSectionthePenalCodeprovidingforcapitalpunishment

andinthealternatethelifeimprisonment."

63.Infact,eventheminorityviewinpara260ofV.Sriharan's
(supra)hasnotedthatlifeimprisonmentmeansimprisonmentfortherest
ofthelifeortheremainderoftheconvictslife.


SQPathan70/117
:::Uploadedon-03/06/201904/06/201902:17:06:::

wp.1181.1182.14527.18.(J).doc
64.Thus,notonlyhastheApexCourtbyitsjudicial
pronouncements,recognisedthesentenceofimprisonmentforlife,tomean
imprisonmentforremainderofone'slife,but,nowthereisastatutory
recognitiontothispunishmentundertheSectionCriminalLaw(Amendment)Act,
2013.


65.Wealsocannotloosesightofthefact,thatSection376-Eis
nottheonlySectionwhichprescribesimprisonmentforlife,whichmeans
imprisonmentfortheremainderofone'snaturallife,butthereareother
Sectionsi.e.Sections370(6),Section370(7),Section376-A,Section376-Dandrecently,in2018,
Sections376-AB,Section376-DA,Section376-DB,Section376(3)wereintroduced,which
prescribethesamesentencei.e.imprisonmentforlife,whichmeans
imprisonmenttilltheremainderofone'snaturallifeandthatthereisno
challengetothesame.


66.AsfarasDr.Chaudhary'ssubmissionthatthereisno
mechanismtoexecutethesaidsentence,inasmuchas,inSection418
Cr.P.C,thereisnomentionofimprisonmenttilltheremainderofone's
naturallifeandthatlifeandlibertycanbetakenaway,onlybyprocedure
SQPathan71/117
:::Uploadedon-03/06/201904/06/201902:17:06:::

wp.1181.1182.14527.18.(J).doc
establishedbylaw,whichprocedureisamiss,isalsodevoidofmerit.
Section418oftheCr.P.Cwhichdealswiththeexecutionofsentenceof
imprisonmentforlifeistheanswer.Asnotedabove,itisevidentfromthe
judicialpronouncementsandtherelevantprovisionsintheSectionIPC,thatthe
termimprisonmentforlifeusedinSection418Cr.P.C,istobeunderstood
tomeanimprisonmenttilltheremainderofone'snaturallifeandhence,
thereisamechanisminplacetoexecutesuchasentence.Thus,thereisno
violationofArticle21oftheConstitution,asthereisa
machinery/procedureforimplementationandexecutionofthesentenceof
imprisonmentforlife,whichmeanstilltheremainderofone'slife,under
Section376-E.


67.InVikramSingh(supra),itisnotedthatprescribing
punishmentsisthefunctionofthelegislatureandnottheCourtsandthat
thelegislatureispresumedtobesupremelywiseandawareoftheneedsof
thepeopleandthemeasuresthatarenecessarytomeetthoseneeds.Itis
furtherobservedthattheCourtsmustshowdeferencetothelegislativewill
andwisdomandbeslowinupsettingtheenactedprovisionsdealingwith
thequantumofpunishmentprescribedfordifferentoffences.
SQPathan72/117
:::Uploadedon-03/06/201904/06/201902:17:06:::

wp.1181.1182.14527.18.(J).doc
68.Havingregardtothediscussionasaforesaid,thereisnomeritin
eitherofDr.Chaudhary'ssubmission,thatSection376-Ecreatesanew
categoryofpunishmenti.e.imprisonmentforlife,whichmeans
imprisonmenttilltheremainderofaconvict'slife,unknowntotheSectionIPCand
thatthereisnomechanismprovidedtoexecutethesaidsentence.
69.ComingtoDr.Chaudhary'snextsubmission,thatSection
376-Edenudesconstitutionalaswellasstatutorypowersofremission,we
find,thatthereisnomeritinthesame,inasmuchas,theConstitution
BenchinV.Sriharan(supra)hasconcludedthesaidissue.Inpara8ofV.
Sriharan(supra),theApexCourtframedsevenissues,outofwhichwe
areconcernedwiththefirsttwoissues,whichreadthus;
(i)Astowhetherimprisonmentforlifemeanstilltheendofconvict's

lifewithorwithoutanyscopeforremission?and

(ii)Whetheraspecialcategoryofsentenceinsteadofdeathforaterm

exceeding14years,canbemadebyputtingthatcategorybeyondthegrant

ofremission?


70.Thefirstquestion,findsitsanswerinGodse(supra)and
MaruRam(supra).TheConstitutionBenchdecisioninMaruRam
SQPathan73/117
:::Uploadedon-03/06/201904/06/201902:17:06:::

wp.1181.1182.14527.18.(J).doc
(supra),whileendorsingtheearlierratiolaiddowninGodse(supra),held
asunder;


"30.Apossibleconfusioncreepsintothisdiscussionby

equatinglifeimprisonmentwith20years'imprisonment.

RelianceisplacedforthispurposeonSection55IPCandon

definitionsinvariousRemissionSchemes.Allthatweneedsay,

asclearlypointedoutinGodse,isthattheseequivalentsare

meantforthelimitedobjectiveofcomputationtohelptheState

exerciseitswidepowersoftotalremissions.Evenifthe

remissionsearnedhavetotaledupto20years,stilltheState

Governmentmayormaynotreleasetheprisoneranduntil

suchareleaseorderremittingtheremainingpartofthelife

sentenceispassed,theprisonerscannotclaimhisliberty.The

reasonisthatlifesentenceisnothinglessthanlifelong

imprisonment.Moreover,thepenaltythenandnowisthe

same-lifeterm.Andremissionvestsnorighttoreleasewhen

thesentenceislifeimprisonment.Nogreaterpunishmentis

inflictedbySection433-Athanthelawannexedoriginallyto

thecrime.Norisanyvestedrighttoremissioncancelledby

compulsory14-yearjaillifeoncewerealisethetruismthata

lifesentenceisasentenceforawholelife.(SectionSeeSambhaJi

KrishanJi.v.StateofMaharashtra(1974)1SCC196and

SectionStateofM.Pv.RatanSingh,(1976)3SCC470.)"

(emphasissupplied)
Itisfurtherheldinpara72asunder;

"72.(4)WefollowGodse'scase(supra)toholdthat

imprisonmentforlifelastsuntilthelastbreath,andwhatever

thelengthofremissionsearned,theprisonercanclaimrelease

onlyiftheremainingsentenceisremittedbyGovernment."

SQPathan74/117
:::Uploadedon-03/06/201904/06/201902:17:06:::

wp.1181.1182.14527.18.(J).doc

71.TheApexCourtinRanjitSingh(supra),whilecommutingthe
sentenceofdeathtolifeimprisonment,heldthat"thetwolifesentences
shouldnotrunconcurrently,toensurethatevenifanyremissionisgranted
forthefirstlifesentence,thesecondonecancommencethereafter".

72.SectionInSubashChandervs.KrishanLal50,theApexCourt
followingGodse(supra)andSectionStateofMadhyaPradeshvs.Ratan
Singh,51heldthatasentenceforlifemeansasentenceforentirelifeofthe
prisonerunlesstheappropriateGovernmentchoosestoexerciseits
discretiontoremiteitherthewholeorpartofthesentenceunderSection
401oftheCriminalProcedureCode,1898[presentSection432Cr.P.C,
1973].


73.InRatanSingh(supra),theApexCourtheldthatasentence
ofimprisonmentforlifedoesnotautomaticallyexpireattheendof20
years,includingtheremissions.
50(2001)4SCC458

51(1976)3SCC470
SQPathan75/117
:::Uploadedon-03/06/201904/06/201902:17:06:::

wp.1181.1182.14527.18.(J).doc
74.TheConstitutionBenchinV.Sriharan(supra),afternoting
thetwoConstitutionBenchdecisionsinGodse(supra)andMaruRam
(supra)whichwereconsistentlyfollowedinRatanSingh(supra),
SubashChander(supra)etc,heldinpara61thatimprisonmentforlifein
termsofSection53readwithSection45ofthePenalCodemeans
imprisonmentforrestofthelifeoftheprisonersubject,however,tothe
righttoclaimremission,etc.asprovidedunderArticles72and161ofthe
ConstitutiontobeexercisablebythePresidentandtheGovernorofthe
StateandalsoasprovidedunderSection432oftheCriminalProcedure
Code.


75.Inpara92ofV.Sriharan(supra)itisfurtherobservedthat
thehighestexecutivepowerprescribedundertheConstitutioninArticles72
and161remainsuntouchedforgrantofpardon,suspension,remissionor
commutationofanysentenceawarded.Thesaidpositionisagainreiterated
inparas93and102,whereitisobservedthatthepowersofremissionunder
Articles72and161oftheConstitutionareuntouched.Thesaidparasreads
asunder:

"93.Asfarasthereferencetoprescriptionofdifferent

typeofpunishmentsincertainothercountriesneednot
SQPathan76/117
:::Uploadedon-03/06/201904/06/201902:17:06:::

wp.1181.1182.14527.18.(J).doc
dissuadeustodeclarethelegalpositionbasedonthe

punishmentprescribedinSectionthePenalCodeandtheenormityof

thecrimesthatarebeingcommittedinthiscountry.Forthe

verysamereasons,wearenotabletosubscribetothe

submissionsofMr.DwivediandShriAndhyarujinathatby

awardingsuchpunishmentofspecifiedperiodoflife

imprisonment,theCourtwouldbeenteringthedomainofthe

Executiveorviolativeoftheprincipleofseparationof

powers.Bysospecifying,itmustbeheldthat,theCourtseven

whileorderingthepunishmentprescribedinSectionthePenalCode

onlyseektoensurethatsuchimpositionofpunishmentis

commensuratetothenatureofcrimecommittedandinthat

processnoinjusticeiscausedeithertothevictimorthe

accusedwhohavingcommittedthecrimeisboundtoundergo

therequiredpunishment.Itmustbenotedthatthehighest

executivepowerprescribedundertheConstitutioninArticles

72and161remainsuntouchedforgrantofpardon,suspend,

remit,reprieveorcommuteanysentenceawarded.Asfaras

theapprehensionthatbydeclaringsuchasentencingprocess,

inregardtotheoffencesfallingUnderSection302andother

offencesforwhichcapitalpunishmentorinthealternatelife

imprisonmentisprescribed,suchpowerswouldalsobe

availabletothetrialCourt,namely,theSessionsCourtis

concerned,thesaidapprehensioncanbesufficiently

safeguardedbymakingadetailedreferencetotheprovisions

containedinChapterXXVIIIofCodeofCriminalProcedure

whichweshallmakeinthesubsequentparagraphsofthis

judgment.Asfarastheotherapprehensionthatby

prohibitingtheconsiderationofanyremissiontheexecutive

powerUnderSections432andSection433areconcerned,itwill

havetobeheldthatsuchprohibitionwillloseitsforcethe

moment,thespecifiedperiodisundergoneandthe

AppropriateGovernment'spowertoconsidergrantof

remissionwillautomaticallygetrevived.Hereagain,itcanbe

statedattheriskofrepetitionthatthehigherexecutivepower

providedundertheConstitutionwillalwaysremainandcan

beexercisedwithoutanyrestriction."

SQPathan77/117
:::Uploadedon-03/06/201904/06/201902:17:06:::

wp.1181.1182.14527.18.(J).doc
"102.Oncewesteerclearofsuchdistinctivefeaturesin

thetwoenactments,onesubstantiveandtheotherprocedural,

onewillhavenohurdleordifficultyinworkingoutthe

differentprovisionsinthetwodifferentenactmentswithout

doinganyviolencetooneortheother.Havingthusnotedthe

aboveaspectsonthepunishmentprescriptioninSectionthePenal

CodeandtheproceduralprescriptioninSectiontheCodeofCriminal

Procedure,wecanauthoritativelystatethatthepower

derivedbytheCourtsoflawinthevariousspecified

provisionsprovidingforimpositionofcapitalpunishmentsinSection

thePenalCodesuchpowercanbeappropriatelyexercisedby

theadjudicatingCourtsinthematterofultimateimposition

ofpunishmentsinsuchawaytoensurethattheother

proceduralprovisionscontainedinSectiontheCodeofCriminal

Procedurerelatingtograntofremission,commutation,

suspensionetc.ontheprescribedauthority,notspeakingof

similarpowersUnderArticles72and162oftheConstitution

whichareuntouchable,cannotbeheldtobeorcaninany

manneroverlapthepoweralreadyexercisedbytheCourtsof

justice."

(emphasissupplied)
76.ThemajorityviewinV.Sriharan(supra),has,inpara177,
summarizedthatthepowerofthePresidentandtheGovernorunder
Articles72and161oftheConstitutionremainsuntouchedinspecial
categorycases.Itisheldthattherighttoclaimremission,commutation,
reprieve,etc.asprovidedunderSectionArticle72orSectionArticle161oftheConstitution
willalwaysbeavailablebeingconstitutionalremediesuntouchedbythe
SQPathan78/117
:::Uploadedon-03/06/201904/06/201902:17:06:::

wp.1181.1182.14527.18.(J).doc
Court.Thispositionisagainreiteratedbytheminorityviewinpara260,
whichisadidemwiththemajorityviewonthepowerofthePresidentand
theGovernorunderSectionArticle72andSection161oftheConstitution.
77.Fromtheaforesaiddiscussion,itisevidentthatanaccusedif
convictedunderSection376-E,tosufferimprisonmentfortheremainder
ofhislife,hewouldbeentitledtoclaimremission,commutation,etc.as
providedunderSectionArticle72orSectionArticle161,beingtheconstitutionalremedies.
Infact,bothMr.Singh,learnedASGandMr.Kumbhakoni,learnedAG,do
notdisputethesaidconstitutionalrightofaconvictandtherefore,the
submissionsofthepetitionersthatSection376-Edenudesconstitutional
remission,doesnotholdground.


78.Asfarasthesubmission,thatSection376-Edenudesstatutory
powersofremission,isconcerned,thesameisalsocoveredbythe
decisionsinV.Sriharan(supra)andSwamyShraddananda(2)(supra).
ByinsertingSection376-EintheSectionIPC,thelegislature,hasintroduceda
punishmentinthenatureofaspecialcategorypunishmenti.e.tillthe
remainderofthenaturallifeoftheconvict.Asnotedabove,thedecisionin
SQPathan79/117
:::Uploadedon-03/06/201904/06/201902:17:06:::

wp.1181.1182.14527.18.(J).doc
SwamyShraddananda(2)(supra)creatingaspecialcategoryof
punishmenti.e.tilltheremainderofthenaturallifeofaconvictwas
recognizedforthefirsttimeandwasthereafterreiteratedbythe
ConstitutionBenchinV.Sriharan(supra).Asalsonotedabove,alife
convicthasaconstitutionalrighttoapplyforremissionunderArticles72
and161oftheConstitutionasclarifiedinthejudgmentsreferredto
hereinabove,buthasnounfetteredstatutoryrighttoclaimremission.The
sameisreflectedinpara67ofSwamyShraddananda(2)(supra),which
readsasunder:


"67.Onaperusalofthesevendecisionsdiscussedabove

andthedecisionsreferredtothereinitwouldappearthatthis

Courtmodifiedthedeathsentencetoimprisonmentforlifeor

insomecasesimprisonmentforatermoftwentyyearswith

thefurtherdirectionthattheconvictmustnotbereleasedfrom

prisonfortherestofhislifeorbeforeactuallyservingoutthe

termoftwentyyears,asthecasemaybe,mainlyontwo

premises;one,animprisonmentforlife,intermsofSection53

readwithSection45ofthePenalCodemeantimprisonment

fortherestoflifeoftheprisonerandtwo,aconvict

undergoinglifeimprisonmenthasnorighttoclaimremission.

Insupportofthesecondpremiserelianceisplacedontheline

ofdecisionsbeginningfromSectionGopalVinayakGodsev.TheState

ofMaharashtraandcomingdowntoSectionMohd.Munnav.Union

ofIndia,(2005)7SCC417(supra)."

SQPathan80/117
:::Uploadedon-03/06/201904/06/201902:17:06:::

wp.1181.1182.14527.18.(J).doc

79.Inpara62ofV.Sriharan(supra),itisheldthatthereisno
scopetocounttheearnedremission,unlesstheperiodoflifeimprisonment
iscommutedtoanyspecificperiod,astheconceptoflifeimprisonment
meanstilltheentiretyofone'slife.Inotherwords,intheabsenceofany
stipulationofthelifesentencerestrictingtheperiodtolessthantheentire
lifeofthesaidconvict,thereisnoquestionoftheconvictgettingearned
remissions.Therefore,theconstitutionalchallengetoSection376-Ebased
onstatutorypowerofremissionbeingtakenaway,doesnotarise.

80.InV.Sriharan(supra),boththemajorityandminorityviews
wereunanimousonthepowersofthePresidentandtheGovernor,as
regardsconstitutionalpowerofremission,however,asregardsthestatutory
provisionsrelatingtoremissionunderSection432andSection433Cr.P.C,in
respectofspecialcategorycases,themajorityviewwastotheeffectthat
statutorypowersofremissionwerenotavailabletosuchcategories.Itis
pertinenttonotethatinSwamyShraddananda(2)(supra),althoughthe
specialcategoryofsentencewascarvedoutbythejudiciaryandnotbythe
legislature,eveninsuchcases,theprohibitiononthegrantofstatutory
SQPathan81/117
:::Uploadedon-03/06/201904/06/201902:17:06:::

wp.1181.1182.14527.18.(J).doc
remissionwasnotconsideredtobeunconstitutional.TheApexCourtinV.
Sriharan(supra),has,inpara63observedthattheexclusionofthe
statutorypowersofremissioninspecialcategorycases,puttingthesaid
punishmentbeyondtheapplicationofremissionasheldinparas91and92
ofSwamyShraddananda(2)(supra),hascometostayasondateandin
para76againaffirmsthesaidprincipleofexclusionofstatutorypowersof
remissionincasesofspecialcategoryofsentence.Inpara77,it
differentiatesbetweentheconstitutionalpowersandthestatutorypowersof
remissionasnotedinMaruRam(supra)andinpara78,itreiteratesthat
theexecutivehastogivedueweightagetoajudicialdecisionalready
pronounced.Itwouldbeappositeheretoreproducepara78ofV.
Sriharan's(supra).Thesamereadsasunder:


"78.Thoughwearenotattemptingtobelittlethescope

andambitofexecutiveactionoftheStateinexerciseofits

powerofstatutoryremission,whenitcomestothequestionof

equationwithajudicialpronouncement,itmustbeheldthat

suchexecutiveactionshouldgivedueweightandrespectto

thelatterinordertoachievethegoalssetintheConstitution.
Itisnottobesaidthatsuchdistinctiveroletobeplayedby

theExecutiveoftheStatewouldbeinthenatureofa

subordinateroletothejudiciary.Inthiscontext,itcanbesaid

withoutanyscopeofcontroversythatwhenbywayofa

judicialdecision,afteradetailedanalysis,havingregardto
SQPathan82/117
:::Uploadedon-03/06/201904/06/201902:17:06:::

wp.1181.1182.14527.18.(J).doc
theproportionalityofthecrimecommitted,itisdecidedthat

theoffenderdeservestobepunishedwiththesentenceoflife

imprisonment(i.e.)fortheendofhislifeorforaspecific

periodof20years,or30yearsor40years,suchaconclusion

shouldsurvivewithoutanyinterruption.Therefore,inorder

toensurethatsuchpunishmentimposed,whichislegally

providedforinSectiontheIndianPenalCodereadalongwithSectionCode

ofCriminalProceduretooperatewithoutanyinterruption,

theinherentpoweroftheCourtconcernedshouldempower

theCourtinpublicinterestaswellasintheinterestofthe

societyatlargetomakeitcertainthatsuchpunishment

imposedwilloperateasimposedbystatingthatnoremission

orothersuchliberalapproachshouldnotcomeintoeffectto

nullifysuchimposition."


81.Inpara102,itisheldthatthereisnorighttoremitor
commute,astheexecutiveauthoritycannotoverlapthepoweralready
exercisedbytheCourtsofjusticeandinpara106,itgiveslegalsanctityand
upholdsthepowertowithholdthestatutorypowersofremission.Itisthus
evident,thatthereisnounfetteredstatutoryrighttoclaimremission.Both,
learnedASGandthelearnedAGdonotdisputethatthepowersunder
Sections432andSection433Cr.P.Careintact,however,thesame,accordingtous,
liesinthedomainofthePunishingCourt,beforetheremissionpowersare
exercisedbytheappropriateGovernment.


SQPathan83/117
:::Uploadedon-03/06/201904/06/201902:17:06:::

wp.1181.1182.14527.18.(J).doc
82.Thenextquestionthatarisesforconsiderationis,whether
Section376-Eviolatestheprincipleofproportionality,byprescribinga
sentenceofdeath,thoughnodeathiscaused?Isitarbitrary?Isitviolative
ofArticles14and21ofConstitutionofIndia?AccordingtoDr.
Chaudhary,abalancemustbestruckbetweentheharmcausedandthe
punishmentawardedandthesentenceofdeathmaybeawardedonlywhere
deathiscausedi.e.foranoffenceunderSection302,asmurderisfargraver
thantheoffenceofrape.Hefurthersubmittedthatalthoughtherearenon-
homicidaloffences,wheredeathsentenceisprescribed,thesaidoffences
cannotbetreatedatparwithrepeatoffenceofrape(376-E).Accordingto
Dr.ChaudharyintroductionofdeathsentenceunderSection376-Eviolates
thestandardlaiddowninBachanSingh'scase(supra),whereinithas
beenheldthatitisonlyintherarestofrarecasesthatdeathcanbeawarded
andonlywhenthealternativeoptionisforeclosed.Thesaidsubmissions
werevehementlyrefutedbythelearnedA.S.G.,learnedAGandthelearned
amicuscuriae.TheysubmittedthattherearecertainoffencesintheSectionIPC
whichprescribedeathsentenceforanact,evenifthesaidactdoesnot
resultindeath.Theysubmittedthattheoffencesofrapeandmurderare
incomparableandthatsuchacomparisonisunrealisticinlaw,as,the
SQPathan84/117
:::Uploadedon-03/06/201904/06/201902:17:06:::

wp.1181.1182.14527.18.(J).doc
consequencesofbotharedifferentandthattherecanbenomathematical
exactitude.Accordingtothelearnedcounselfortherespondents,rapeis
farmoregraveroffencethantheoffenceofmurder,inasmuchas,ittakes
thevictim'srightoflifeunderSectionArticle21.Wehavenotedthesubmissions
onthepointofproportionalityandarbitrarinessandhaveconsideredthe
Judgmentsrelieduponbythepartiesonthesaidaspect.Firstandforemost,
wemaynotethatthepunishmentprescribedunderSection376-Ewould
havetobeevaluatedintheIndiancontextandnotintheAmericancontext.
RelianceplacedontheEnglishcasesbyDr.Chaudharycannotbe
consideredintheIndiancontext,inasmuchas,theU.S.Courtstreatcrimes
ofrapeascrimesagainstindividuals,unlikeIndianlaw,whichtreatsan
offenceofrapenotonlyasacrimeagainstthevictimbut,asacrimeagainst
theentiresociety.


83.Therecanbenodispute,thatpunishmentsmustbe
proportionatetothenatureandgravityoftheoffences,forwhich,thesame
wereprescribedandthatprescribingpunishmentsisthefunctionofthe
legislatureandnotofCourts.Thelegislature,initswisdom,whileenacting
Section376-Ewasawareoftheneedsofthepeopleandthemeasuresthat
SQPathan85/117
:::Uploadedon-03/06/201904/06/201902:17:06:::

wp.1181.1182.14527.18.(J).doc
werenecessarytobetakentomeetthoseneedsi.e.thegrowingincidentsof
rape.Nodoubt,Courtshavejurisdictiontointerferewhenthepunishment
prescribedissooutrageouslydisproportionatetotheoffenceorsoinhuman
orbrutalthatthesamecannotbeacceptedbyanystandardofdecency.
However,Courtsdonotinterferewiththeprescribedpunishmentonly
becauseapunishmentisperceivedtobeexcessive.Thelegislatureisinthe
bestpositiontounderstandtheneedsofthepeopleasenjoinedinthe
Constitution.TheCourtwillinterfereinthisprocessonlywhenthe
Statute/provisionisclearlyviolativeoftherightconferredonacitizen
underPartIIIorwhentheStatute/insertionofaprovisionisbeyondthe
legislativecompetenceofthelegislature.InVikramSingh'scase(supra)
inpara40,itisobservedasunder:

"40.InaParliamentarydemocracylikeours,lawsare

enactedbytheParliamentortheStatelegislaturewithintheir

respectivelegislativefieldsspecifiedundertheConstitution.
Thepresumptionattachedtotheselawsisthattheyaremeant

tocatertothesocietaldemandsandmeetthechallengesof

thetime,forthelegislatureispresumedtobesupremelywise

andawareofsuchneedsandchallenges.Themeansfor

redressingamischiefarealsointherealmoflegislationand

solongasthosemeansarenotviolativeoftheconstitutional

provisionsorthefundamentalrightsofthecitizens,the

Courtswillshowdeferencetowardsthem.That,however,is

nottosaythatlawsthatareoutrageouslybarbaricor

penaltiesthatarepalpablyinhumanorshockingly
SQPathan86/117
:::Uploadedon-03/06/201904/06/201902:17:06:::

wp.1181.1182.14527.18.(J).doc
disproportionatetothegravityoftheoffenceforwhichthe

sameareprescribedcannotbeinterferedwith.Asobservedby

Chandrachud,C.J.inMithu'scase(supra)iftheParliament

weretomorrowtoamendSectiontheIndianPenalCodeandmaketheft

ofcattlebyafarmerpunishablewithcuttingofthehandsofthe

thief,theCourtswouldstepintodeclaretheprovisionas

constitutionallyinvalidandinbreachoftherighttolife.

...................

(emphasissupplied)
Inpara37,itwasfurtherobservedthatalegislationis
presumedtobeconstitutionallyvalidwiththeburdenofshowingthe
contrary,lyingheavilyuponanyonewhochallengesitsvalidity.
84.Itispertinenttonote,thatSectionIPCitselfrecognizesoffences,
whichfetchadeathterm,evenifnodeathiscaused,andassuch,thereisno
meritinDr.Chaudhary'ssubmissionthatunderSection376-E,death
sentenceisnotjustified,asnodeathiscaused.InSectionIPC,theoffenceswhich
prescribedeathsentenceforanact,whichdoesnotresultindeathare;
Section120B(1)dealingwithconspiracy;Section121forwagingwar
againsttheGovernmentofIndiaorattemptingtowageawarorabettingthe
same;Section132whichdealswithapersonwhoabetsthecommittingof
mutinybyasoldier,officer,sailororairmanintheArmy,NavyorAir
SQPathan87/117
:::Uploadedon-03/06/201904/06/201902:17:06:::

wp.1181.1182.14527.18.(J).doc
Force,andintheeventofsuchmutinybeingcommittedasasequeltosuch
abetment;Section195Awhichpunishesaperson,ifhethreatensanyother
togivefalseevidenceandasaconsequenceofsuchact,anyperson,though
innocent,isconvictedandsentencedtodeathinconsequenceofsuchfalse
evidence;Section307(2)whichdealswithattempttomurderbyaperson
whoisalreadyconvictedandsentencedtolifeimprisonment;Section376-
Awhichdealswithrapeofanaggravatednatureandevenifthewomanis
notkilledbuttheactofrapecauseshertobeinavegetativestate.Wemay
note,thattheDivisionBenchofthisCourtinIndianHarmReduction
Network(supra),upheldthevalidityofSection31AoftheNDPSActand
readdowntheword`shall'toread`may'forawardingdeathsentenceto
repeatoffendersandincludedlifeimprisonmentasanalternative
punishment.Hereagain,underSection31A,legislaturehadprescribed
deathsentence,eventhoughnodeathwascaused.


85.Infact,aftertheinsertionofSection376-EintheSectionIPCin2013,
byvirtueoftheSectionAmendmentActof2018,twoprovisionshavebeeninserted
intheSectionIPCi.e.Section376-ABandSection376-DA,whichalsoprovides
fordeath,asoneofthesentence.Section376-ABprovidespunishmentfor
SQPathan88/117
:::Uploadedon-03/06/201904/06/201902:17:06:::

wp.1181.1182.14527.18.(J).doc
rapeonawomanbelowtwelveyearsandSection376-DAprovidesfor
punishmentforGangrapeonawomanundersixteenyears.
86.Itwouldbehighlyunrealistictocomparecasesofrapewith
theoffenceofmurder,astheconsequencesareincomparable.Avictimof
rapeundergoesatraumaticexperiencewithwhichshehastoliveforthe
restofherlife.Theeffectsofrapearenotonlyphysical,butalso
psychological.Herrighttolivewithhumandignityisinfringed,whichis
constitutionallyguaranteedtoherunderSectionArticle21oftheConstitution.
Rapeisahighlyreprehensiblecrimeanddemonstratesatotalcontemptfor
thepersonalintegrityandautonomyofthevictim.Itisan`ultimate
violationofselfrighttolivewithdignity'.Theeffectofrapecaneven
havedisastrousconsequences,forexample,canleavethepersonina
vegetativestate;cancompelhertocommitsuicideandcanhavelifelong
impactonhermentalandemotionalpsyche.Needlesstostate,thatthe
stigmathatisattachedtorapevictimsislifelong.Inasense,theoffenceof
rapecanbesaidtobegraverthanthatofmurder.


SQPathan89/117
:::Uploadedon-03/06/201904/06/201902:17:06:::

wp.1181.1182.14527.18.(J).doc
87.InBodhisattwaGautam(supra),theApexCourtobservedthat
'unfortunately,awoman,inourcountry,belongstoaclassorgroupof
societywhoareinadisadvantagedpositiononaccountofseveralsocial
barriersandimpedimentsandhave,therefore,beenthevictimoftyrannyat
thehandsofmenwithwhomthey,fortunately,undertheConstitutionenjoy
equalstatus.Womenalsohavetherighttolifeandliberty;theyalsohave
therighttoberespectedandtreatedasequalcitizens.Theirhonourand
dignitycannotbetouchedorviolated.Theyalsohavetherighttoleadan
honourableandpeacefullife.Women,inthem,havemanypersonalities
combined.Theyaremother,daughter,sisterandwifeandnotplaythings
forcenterspreadsinvariousmagazines,periodicalsornewspapersnorcan
theybeexploitedforobscenepurposes.Theymusthavetheliberty,the
freedomand,ofcourse,independencetolivetherolesassignedtothemby
naturesothatthesocietymayflourishastheyalonehavethetalentsand
capacitytoshapethedestinyandcharacterofmenanywhereandinevery
partoftheworld.'TheApexCourthasfurtherobservedthat'rapeisthus
notonlyacrimeagainstthepersonofawoman(victim),itisacrime
againsttheentiresociety.Itdestroystheentirepsychologyofawomanand
pushesherintodeepemotionalcrisis.Itisonlybyhersheerwillpower
SQPathan90/117
:::Uploadedon-03/06/201904/06/201902:17:06:::

wp.1181.1182.14527.18.(J).doc
thatsherehabilitatesherselfinthesocietywhich,oncomingtoknowofthe
rape,looksdownuponherinderisionandcontempt.Rapeis,therefore,the
mosthatedcrime.Itisacrimeagainstbasichumanrightsandisalso
violativeofthevictim'smostcherishedfundamentalright,namely,theright
tolifecontainedinSectionArticle21.Tomanyfeministsandpsychiatrists,rapeis
lessasexualoffencethananactofaggressionaimedatdegradingand
humiliatingwomen.Therapelawsdonot,unfortunately,takecareofthe
socialaspectofthematterandareineptinmanyrespects.'
88.InDelhiDomesticWorkingWomen'sForum(supra),the
ApexCourtobservedthatrapedoesindeedposeaseriesofproblemsfor
thecriminaljusticesystem.Therearecriesforharshestpenalties,butoften
attimes,suchcrieseclipsetherealplightofthevictim.Rapeisan
experiencewhichshakesthefoundationsofthelivesofthevictims.For
many,itseffectisalong-termone,impairingtheircapacityforpersonal
relationships,alteringtheirbehaviourandvaluesandgeneratingendless
fear.Inadditiontothetraumaoftherapeitself,victimshavetosuffer
furtheragonyduringlegalproceedings.


SQPathan91/117
:::Uploadedon-03/06/201904/06/201902:17:06:::

wp.1181.1182.14527.18.(J).doc
89.TheApexCourtinthecaseofSectionTheStateofPunjabv.Gurmit
SinghandOrs.52inpara21observedthatcrimeagainstwomeningeneral
andrapeinparticularisontheincrease;thatwhilewearecelebrating
women'srightsinallspheres,weshowlittleornoconcernforherhonour;
thatitisasadreflectionontheattitudeofindifferenceofthesociety
towardstheviolationofhumandignityofthevictimsofsexcrimes;and
thatarapistnotonlyviolatesthevictim'sprivacyandpersonalintegrity,but
inevitablycausesseriouspsychologicalaswellasphysicalharminthe
process.Itwasfurtherobservedthatrapeisnotmerelyaphysicalassault-
itisoftendestructiveofthewholepersonalityofthevictim;thatamurderer
destroysthephysicalbodyofhisvictim,whereas,arapistdegradesthevery
soulofthehelplessfemaleandtherefore,Courtsshoulderagreat
responsibilitywhiletryinganaccusedonchargesofrape;thattheymust
dealwithsuchcaseswithutmostsensitivity;thattheyshouldexaminethe
broaderprobabilitiesofacaseandnotgetswayedbyminorcontradictions
orinsignificantdiscrepanciesinthestatementoftheprosecutrix,whichare
notofafatalnature,tothrowoutanotherwisereliableprosecutioncase;
thatiftheevidenceoftheprosecutrixinspiresconfidence,itmustberelied
521996(2)SCC384
SQPathan92/117
:::Uploadedon-03/06/201904/06/201902:17:06:::

wp.1181.1182.14527.18.(J).doc
uponwithoutseekingcorroborationofherstatementinmaterialparticulars;
thatifforsomereason,theCourtfindsitdifficulttoplaceimplicitreliance
onhertestimony,itmaylookforevidencewhichmaylendassurancetoher
testimony,shortofcorroborationrequiredinthecaseofanaccomplice;and
thatthetestimonyoftheprosecutrixmustbeappreciatedinthebackground
oftheentirecaseandthetrialCourtmustbealivetoitsresponsibilityand
besensitivewhiledealingwithcasesinvolvingsexualmolestations.
90.InAshaRam(supra),theSupremeCourtinpara22
observedthatordinarily,theoffenceofrapeisgravebyitsnature.Moreso,
whentheperpetratorofthecrimeisthefatheragainsthisowndaughter,it
ismoregraverandtherarestofrare,whichwarrantsastrongdeterrent
judicialhand.Eveninordinarycriminalterminologyarapeisacrimemore
heinousthanmurder,asitdestroystheverysoulofhaplesswoman.Thisis
moresowhentheperpetratorofthegravecrimeisthefatherofthevictim
girl.Fatherisafortress,refugeandthetrusteeofhisdaughter.Bybetraying
thetrustandtakingundueadvantageoftrustreposedinhimbythe
daughter,servingfoodatoddhoursat12.30a.m.heravishedthechastityof
hisdaughter,jeopardizedherfutureprospectofgettingmarried,enjoying
SQPathan93/117
:::Uploadedon-03/06/201904/06/201902:17:06:::

wp.1181.1182.14527.18.(J).doc
maritalandconjugallife,hasbeentotallydevastated.Notonlythat,she
carriesanindeliblesocialstigmaonherheadanddeathlessshameaslong
asshelives.


91.Rapecasesincludinggangrapesareonastaggeringhighand
statisticsbeartestimonytothat.Judicialnoticecanalsobetakenoftherise
insuchcases.Despitelegislation,andstringentpunishment,casesofsexual
assaultarecommittedbypredatorswithimpunity,withnofearoflaw.Not
onlyyounggirlsorwomen,butevenchildren,new-bornsortoddlersare
notspared.Whereareweasasocietyheading?Dochildren,women,not
havetherighttolivewithhumandignityguaranteedtothemunderSectionArticle
21oftheConstitution?Dowomennothavetherighttomovefreely,
withoutfearofinvasionoftheirprivacy?Ofcourse,theydoandnobody
hasarighttotakeawaythisinvaluablefreedom,guaranteedtothemunder
SectionArticle21oftheConstitution.Anactofsexualassault,invadestheprivacy
ofthesurvivor,leavinganindeliblescaronthesurvivor,whichisnotonly
physical,butalsoemotionalandpsychological.Thesurvivorundergoes
post-traumaticstressdisorder,sleepdisorder,feelingofguilt,anger,distrust
ofothers,feelingofpersonalpowerlessness(feelsthattherapisthasrobbed
SQPathan94/117
:::Uploadedon-03/06/201904/06/201902:17:06:::

wp.1181.1182.14527.18.(J).doc
herofcontroloverherbody),stigmainthesocietyetc.Thesurvivorsmany
atimeexperiencealong-termimpactontheirpersonallivesneeding
greaterpsychologicalassistance.Effectsofsexualassaultarelifelong,as
theactaffectsthesouloftheperson,herbodilyintegrity,andherrightover
abody.Ifthegirl/womangetspregnantonaccountofsexualassault,the
traumaisevengreater.Ifachildisbornasaresultofsexualassault,the
questionarises,whowilllookafterthechild?Thus,consideringtheimpact
anoffenceofsexualassaulthasonthesurvivor,bynostretchof
imagination,itcanbesaidthatrapeislessfoulthanmurder.Therising
crimerateandfallingstandardshaveechoedtheneedforadeterrentlaw.
ThestatisticsoftheNationalCrimeRecordsBillof2017showsthatrapes
havegoneupsince2016inMumbaiandDelhi.


92.InVikramSingh(supra),theApexCourtwhiledecidingthe
constitutionalvalidityofSection364Aobserved,thatthebackgroundin
whichthelawwasenactedandtheconcernshownbytheParliamentforthe
safetyandsecurityofthecitizensandtheunity,sovereigntyandintegrityof
thecountry,thepunishmentprescribedfortheoffenceunderSection364A,
cannotbedubbedasbeingoutrageouslydisproportionatetothenatureof
SQPathan95/117
:::Uploadedon-03/06/201904/06/201902:17:06:::

wp.1181.1182.14527.18.(J).doc
theoffence,forittobedeclaredunconstitutional.Itwasfurtherobserved
thatjudicialdiscretionwasavailabletotheCourtstochooseoneofthetwo
sentencesprescribedinSection364AandthatCourtsalongjudicially
recognizedlines,wouldawarddeathsentenceonlyintherarestofrare
cases;thatjustbecausesentenceofdeathisapossiblepunishmentthatmay
beawardedinappropriatecasescannotmakeitperseinhumanorbarbaric;
andthatintheordinarycourseandincaseswhichqualifytobecalled
rarestoftherare,deathmaybeawardedonlywherekidnappingor
abductionhasresultedinthedeatheitherofthevictimoranyoneelseinthe
courseofthecommissionoftheoffence.


93.Havingregardtowhatisstatedaforesaidandthebackground
inwhich376-EwasenactedshowstheconcernoftheParliamentforthe
safetyandsecurityofitswomenandchildrenandassuch,cannotbe
dubbedasbeingeitherarbitraryoroutrageouslydisproportionateor
violativeofArticles14and21oftheConstitution.Thereisalwaysa
judicialdiscretionavailabletotheCourtstochooseoneofthetwo
sentencesprescribedforthosefallingunderSection376-Ei.e.
SQPathan96/117
:::Uploadedon-03/06/201904/06/201902:17:06:::

wp.1181.1182.14527.18.(J).doc
imprisonmentforremainderofone'slifeordeathandthediscretionwill
undoubtedlybeexercisedbyCourtsalongthejudiciallyrecognizedlines
anddeathsentence,intherarestofrarecase.Needlesstostate,thatwhile
awardingdeathsentence,theCourtswillhavetofollowtheparameterslaid
downbytheApexCourtinBachanSingh(supra)andSectionMachhiSinghvs.
StateofPunjab53.


94.Section376-Ewouldbeapplicableonlytothoseoffenders,
whoarepreviouslyconvictedforanoffencepunishableunderSections376
or376-A,or376-Dor376-ABor376-DAor376-DBandaresubsequently
convictedforanoffencepunishableunderanyofthesaidSections.
95.Infact,V.Sriharan(supra),inpara96.10readwithpara97
holdsthatthepenaltyprovidedunderSection376-E,cannotbeheldtobe
excessiveorunwarranted.Inparas98and99ofthesaidjudgment,the
ApexCourtafternotingdownthepunishmentsprescribedforvarious
offencesinpara96,whichincludesthepunishmentprescribedfor
Section376-E,hasheldthatthereisnoviolationoflaworconflictwith
53(1983)3SCC470
SQPathan97/117
:::Uploadedon-03/06/201904/06/201902:17:06:::

wp.1181.1182.14527.18.(J).doc
anyotherprovisionoftheSectionIPCbyimpositionofsuchminimumand
maximumsentencesforcrimesofsuchdiabolicnature.Itwasfurther
observedthattheprocessfordeterminationofanappropriatepunishment
waslefttotheadjudicationoftheinstitutionofthejudiciarywhichisfully
equippedwiththenecessaryknowledgeoflaw,experience,talentand
infrastructuretostudythedetailedpartsofeachcaseandapplythelegal
principlesandthelawonthesubject.Itwasalsoobservedthattheever
risingcrimerateofsexualoffencesechoestheneedforadeterrent
punishment,includingforrepeatoffendersunderSection376-E.
96.Havingsaidso,wehastentoadd,thatoncetheGovernment
acknowledgesandrecognisestheneedforenactingthelegislation,tocurb
incidentsofsexualassault,whichareontherise,itsdutydoesnotendby
passingtheLegislation.Infact,itsdutyandresponsibilitycontinueseven
thereafter.Undoubtedly,preventionofsexualassaultistheprimary
responsibilityoftheState,however,theresponsibilitydoesnotstophere.
OncetheStateacceptsandrecognisesthedreadfulimpactandeffectsthat
sexualassaulthasonarapesurvivor,itisincumbentontheStatetohavea
system/mechanisminplace,whichwillprovidenotonlymedicalhelpto
SQPathan98/117
:::Uploadedon-03/06/201904/06/201902:17:06:::

wp.1181.1182.14527.18.(J).doc
suchsurvivors,butalsoaplacewheretheycanberehabilitatedand
assistanceofcounsellors,psychiatrists,psychologistscanbeprovidedfor
dealingwiththeirtrauma.Government/Statemustbealiveandsensitiveto
suchissuesandhaveamechanismtohelpsuchsurvivors,postsexual
assault.Wherethesurvivorgetspregnantanddeliversachild,asaresultof
thesexualassault,theneedtoprovideallassistanceisevengreater.
Survivorscannotbelefthighanddrytofendforthemselves,postincident,
whentheyrequireutmosthelp.Incidentsofsexualassault,toagreat
extentarearesultofthefailureoftheState,toprotectitscitizens.In
thesecircumstances,itbecomestheresponsibilityandboundendutyofthe
Statetoextendallpossiblehelp,emotionalandpsychologicalassistanceto
suchsurvivors,apartfrommedicalassistance.Financialassistanceis
providedthroughschemessuchastheManodhairya,butapartfromsuch
financialhelp,rebuildingthesoulofthesurvivoriscrucialandimperative,
consideringthetraumathatthesurvivorundergoes.Theplightofthe
survivorcannotbeoverlooked.Wefindthatallpartiesaread-idemonthe
fact,thatarapevictimsurvivorlooseshersoul,personalintegrityand
dignity,then,underthesecircumstances,oncehavingrecognisedthesaid
fact,theStatecannotshirkitsresponsibilitybynotprovidingassistanceto
SQPathan99/117
:::Uploadedon-03/06/201904/06/201902:17:06:::

wp.1181.1182.14527.18.(J).doc
such,survivors.Wehopeandexpect,thattheStatewillcomeupwitha
mechanismorpolicytohelpsuchsurvivors,postincidentsofsexual
assaults,inthelightofwhatisobserved.Statemustalsocomeupwitha
policy/mechanismtotakefullresponsibilityofthechildrenbornto
survivors,asaresultofthesexualassault.


97.Anotheraspect,whichwestronglyfeel,isthattheremustbea
mechanismtokeepatrack/watchonsexoffenders,topreventrepeat
crimes.Inthiscontext,wemayrefertotheParliamentaryCommittee
Report,inparticularpara5.42.1,whereinitisobservedasunder:-
"TheCommitteehasbeengiventounderstandthatinour
country,thereisnosystemofkeepingawatchonrepeatsexoffenders.The
Committeehasalsobeengiventounderstandthat,accordingtoastudy
conductedonthesexoffenders,majorityoftheoffendershadcommitteda
sexcrimeearlierandescapednoticeofthepoliceauthoritiesandwere
roamingfreely.TheCommitteehasalsobeengiventounderstandthat
WesternEuropeancountriesandtheUShavedevelopedamechanismfor
trackingsuchtypeofsexoffendersandaremaintainingadatabaseinthis
regard.TheCommitteerecommendsthatasuitablemechanismmaybe
SQPathan100/117
:::Uploadedon-03/06/201904/06/201902:17:06:::

wp.1181.1182.14527.18.(J).doc
evolvedtokeepawatchonhabitualandrepeatsexoffenders.The
Committeealsorecommendsthataftertheconvictiononfirstoffence,the
namesoftheconvictedpersonsshouldbepublicizedforinformationofthe
public.TheCentralCrimeRecordsBureaushouldincludethedataintheir
records.TheStateandUTGovernmentsalsoshouldsetupcrimerecords
bureausandthedata,includingthenamesofconvictedpeoplemustbe
maintainedandupdated,fromtimetotime".


Itis,thus,timefortheGovernmenttoworkontheselinesas
suggestedbytheCommitteeandprovideamechanismtocreateadatabase
ofoffendersinvolvedincasesofsexualoffences.Infact,bymonitoring,a
tabcanalsobekeptonsuchoffenders,whethersuchoffendersareonthe
pathofreformationorlikelytodeviate,sothatfuturecrimesbysuch
offenderscanbeobviated.Infact,sexualoffenders,whilstinjailcanalso
beprovidedwithcounsellingandpsychiatric/psychologicalhelp,asmaybe
necessary,sothattheyrealisetheconsequencesofplayingwithhuman
lives,andassuchminimizetheprospectofrepeatingtheoffence.
SQPathan101/117

:::Uploadedon-03/06/201904/06/201902:17:06:::

wp.1181.1182.14527.18.(J).doc
98.Apartfromtheaforesaid,theStatealsoneedstotakeup
measurestopreventincidentsofsexualassault.Governmentmusttake
necessarystepsforpromotinggendersensitizationinschools,colleges,at
workplaceetc.Schoolcurriculumshouldincludevalueswhichencourage
childrentorespecttheirfellowhumanbeings,especiallywomen,poorand
theneedy.Ahealthyschoolcurriculumcanlaythefoundationforanall
rounddevelopmentofone'spersonality.Stepsshouldbetakentoensure
thatrespectforwomenisthenorm.Inachievingthisobjective,
Governmentmustundertakeprogrammestowardsgendersensitization,at
alllevels.


99.Havingsaidthat,wedonotfindthatSection376-E,by
providingstringentpunishmenttorepeatoffenders,inanywayviolatesthe
principleofproportionalityorisarbitraryorinanyway,violativeofArticles
14and21oftheConstitution.Norcanitbesaidtobevoidforvagueness.
Asnoted,therealsoexistsafairandjustprocedureintheCr.P.Ctodeal
withanycontingencyarisingoutofSection376-E.
SQPathan102/117
:::Uploadedon-03/06/201904/06/201902:17:06:::

wp.1181.1182.14527.18.(J).doc
100.Thenextquestionthatarisesforconsiderationis,whether
Section376-Eprescribesamandatorydeathsentence?AccordingtoDr.
Chaudhary,lawdoesnotallowconsecutivelifesentence,inasmuchas,ifa
personisservinglifeimprisonmentandifheisconvictedagain,hecannot
besentencedtolifeagain.Theanswertothesaidquestionliesinthe
ConstitutionBenchJudgmentoftheApexCourtinthecaseof
SectionMuthuramalingamandOrsvs.StaterepresentedbyInspectorOfPolice54
whereinitisheldthatitisperfectlylegalforapersontobesentencedto
morethanonelifeterm.Takeforexample,ifapersoncommitstwo
separatemurders,andheissentencedtolifeimprisonmentinthefirstcase,
thenmusthebemandatorilysentencedtodeathinthesecondcase,evenif
thesaidoffencedoesnotfallinthecategoryof'rarestofrarecases'?Can
henotbesentencedtolifeimprisonmentagain?Wouldthelifetermmerge
withtheearlierlifesentence?Theanswertothefirsttwoquestionsis'Yes',
inviewoftheConstitutionBenchJudgmentinMuthuramalingam
(supra).Asfarasthethirdquestionastowhetherthelifetermmergeswith
theearliersentenceoflifeandassuchwouldnotactasadeterrentis
concerned,takeforexample,wherethesentenceisoflifeimprisonment
54(2016)8SCC313
SQPathan103/117
:::Uploadedon-03/06/201904/06/201902:17:06:::

wp.1181.1182.14527.18.(J).doc
simplicitorandasecondsentenceoflife,isagainawarded.Thefirst
sentenceoflifeimprisonmentsimplicitorwillrunfirstandtillsuchperson
doesnotcomplete14years,hewouldnotbeentitledtoremission.The
convictinsuchacasewouldhaveastatutoryrighttoapplyforbeing
releasedonremissionafter14yearsaftergettingthesentencecommuted.
Evenifaconvictgetsthebenefitoftheremissioninthefirstcase,the
secondsentencewouldactasadeterrentandtheearlyreleasewouldonly
bebyresortingtoArticles72and161oftheConstitution.TheApexCourt
hasheld,thatmultiplesentencesforimprisonmentforlifecanbeawarded,
however,suchsentenceswouldbesuperimposedovereachother,sothat
anyremissionorcommutationgrantedbythecompetentauthorityinone
doesnotipsofactoresultinremissionofthesentenceawardedtothe
prisonerfortheother.Thus,Dr.Chaudhary'scontention,thatSection
376-Eindirectlyprescribesamandatorydeathsentence,hasnobearingand
oughttoberejected.


101.Section376-Econtemplatestwotypesofpunishmentsi.e.
imprisonmentfortheremainderoftheperson'slifeorwithdeath.Thus,
thequestionofmandatorydeathterm,doesnotarise.Although
SQPathan104/117
:::Uploadedon-03/06/201904/06/201902:17:06:::

wp.1181.1182.14527.18.(J).doc
Dr.ChaudharylaidemphasisonSection75oftheIPCtourgethatthere
wouldbeamandatorydeathsentence,itmaybenotedthattheprincipleof
Section75oftheIPCcannotbeblindlyadoptedtoacaseunderSection
376-E,astheyoperateindifferentfields.Section75restrictsits
applicabilityofChapterXIIandChapterXVIIoftheSectionIPC,whereas,
ChapterXVI,whichprecedesChapterXVIIwasdeliberatelyomittedfrom
Section75oftheIPC,Section376-Ecreatesanewclassofpunishmentfor
repeatoffenders,similartoSection31AoftheNDPSAct.Theserepeat
offenderscannotfallunderSection75IPC.


102.TheApexCourtinV.Sriharan'scase(supra)has,inparas97
to99,afternotinginpara96,the12crimes,forwhichdeathandlifeis
prescribed(inpara96.10,-punishmentunderSection376-Eisnoted),has
observedthatforeachoneoftheoffencesnotedinpara96thepunishment
providedfori.e.penaltyofdeathorlifeimprisonmentorspecified
minimumperiodofimprisonment,cannotbeheldtobeexcessiveor
unwarranted,havingregardtothemagnitudeoftheoffence.TheApex
Courtobservedthathavingregardtothemannerofcommissionofmodus
operandi,thesituationinwhichtheactwascommitted,thepositionofthe
SQPathan105/117
:::Uploadedon-03/06/201904/06/201902:17:06:::

wp.1181.1182.14527.18.(J).doc
victimandsoon,thelawmakers,whileprescribingdifferentpunishments
fordifferentcrimes,thoughtitfittoprescribeextremepunishmentsfor
suchcrimesofgrotesque(monstrous)nature.Itwasfurtherobservedthatit
wouldnotbepossibleforthelawmakerstothinkoforprescribein
exactitudeallkindsofsuchcriminalconducttofitintoanyappropriate
pigeonholeforstructuredpunishmentstoruninbetweentheminimumand
maximumperiodofimprisonmentandtherefore,thelawmakersthoughtit
fittoprescribetheminimumandthemaximumsentencetobeimposedfor
suchdiabolicnatureofcrimesandleaveittotheJudiciary,whois
appropriatelyequippedwiththenecessaryknowledgeoflawandexpertise,
tostudyindetaileachcasebasedonlegallyacceptableevidence,apart
fromtheguidanceitgetsfromthejuristsandjudicialpronouncements,and
determinefromthenatureofoffence,whatkindofpunishmentwithinthe
prescribedlimits,undertherelevantprovisionwouldappropriatelyfitin.
103.Dr.ChaudharyurgedthatSection376-Emakesdeath
mandatory,bymakingreferencetothepasthistoryoftheprovisions
prescribingdeathpenaltyandsubmitsthatthesaidSectionseekstorevive
SQPathan106/117
:::Uploadedon-03/06/201904/06/201902:17:06:::

wp.1181.1182.14527.18.(J).doc
Section367(5)ofCr.P.C,thenprevalent.TheApexCourtinBachanSingh
(supra),hasnarratedthehistoryandapprovesandsupportsthereasons
recordedinSectionJagmohanSinghvs.StateofU.P55.TheApexCourtin
BachanSingh(supra),hasobservedthatbeforetheamendmentofSection
367(5)Cr.P.C.bySectiontheCriminalProcedureCodeSection(Amendment)Act,1955
(Act26of1955)whichcameintoforceonJanuary1,1956,onaconviction
foranoffencepunishablewithdeathiftheCourtsentencedtheaccusedto
anypunishmentotherthandeath,thereasonwhysentenceofdeathwasnot
passedhadtobestatedinthejudgment.Section367(5)oftheCodeof
CriminalProcedurebeforeitsamendmentbyAct26of1955providedthat
"iftheaccusedisconvictedofanoffencepunishablewithdeath,andthe
Courtsentenceshimtoanypunishmentotherthandeath,theCourtshall,in
itsjudgmentstatethereasonswhysentenceofdeathwasnotpassed".This
sub-sectionwasconstruedbeforetheSectionAmendmentAct,Act26of1955as
meaningthattheextremesentenceisthenormalsentenceandthemitigated
sentenceistheexception.SectionInDalipSinghandOrsvs.StateofPunjab56it
washeldthatinacaseofmurder,thedeathsentenceshouldordinarilybe
imposedunlessthetryingJudgeforreasonswhichshouldnormallybe
55AIR1973SC947

56(1979)4SCC332
SQPathan107/117
:::Uploadedon-03/06/201904/06/201902:17:06:::

wp.1181.1182.14527.18.(J).doc
recordedconsidersitpropertoawardthelesserpenalty.SectionInVadiveluThevar
vs.TheStateofMadras57theApexCourtexpresseditsviewthatthe
questionofsentencehastobedetermined,notwithreferencetothevolume
orcharacteroftheevidenceadducedbytheprosecutioninsupportofits
case,butwithreferencetothefactwhetherthereareanyextenuating
circumstanceswhichcanbesaidtomitigatetheenormityofthecrime.If
thecourtissatisfiedthattherearesuchmitigatingcircumstances,onlythen,
itwouldbejustifiedinimposingthelesserofthetwosentencesprovidedby
law.Thesetwocaseswererenderedinrelationtooffenceswhichwere
committedbeforeSectiontheCriminalProcedureCodeSectionAmendmentAct26of1955
wasenacted.Thelawthereforepriortotheamendmentwasthatunless
thereareextenuatingcircumstancesthepunishmentformurdershouldbe
deathandnotimprisonmentforlife.


104.Thedevelopmentoflawregardingtheimpositionofdeath
sentencecanbesummarisedasfollows.WhilebeforetheSectionAmendingAct26
of1955wasintroducedthenormalsentenceforanoffenceofmurderwas
deathandthatthelessersentencewastheexception.Aftertheintroduction
57AIR1957S.C.614
SQPathan108/117
:::Uploadedon-03/06/201904/06/201902:17:06:::

wp.1181.1182.14527.18.(J).doc
ofsub-section(5)toSection367byAct26of1955,itwasnotobligatory
fortheCourttostatethereasonsastowhythesentenceofdeathwasnot
passed.BytheamendmentthediscretionoftheCourtindecidingwhether
toimposeasentenceofdeathorimprisonmentforlifebecamewider.The
Courtwasboundtoexerciseitsjudicialdiscretioninawardingoneorthe
otherofthesentences.BytheintroductionofSection354(3)thenormal
sentenceisthelessersentenceofimprisonmentforlifeandifthesentence
ofdeathistobeawarded,specialreasonswillhavetoberecorded.Inother
words,theCourtbeforeimposingasentenceofdeathshouldbesatisfied
thattheoffenceisofsuchanaturethattheextremepenaltyiscalledfor.
ThedecisionsrenderedaftertheintroductionoftheamendmenttoSection
354(3)byAct2of1974havereiteratedthisposition.SectionInBalwantSinghvs.
StateofPunjab58,theApexCourtsummingupthepositionobservedthat
underSection354(3)oftheCr.P.C,1973,theCourtisrequiredtostatethe
reasonsforthesentenceawardedandinthecaseofsentenceofdeath
specialreasonsarerequiredtobestated."Itwouldthusbenoticedthat
awardingofthesentenceotherthanthesentenceofdeathisthegeneralrule
nowandonlyspecialreasons,thatistosay,specialfactsandcircumstances
58AIR1976SC230
SQPathan109/117
:::Uploadedon-03/06/201904/06/201902:17:06:::

wp.1181.1182.14527.18.(J).doc
inagivencase,willwarrantthepassingofthedeathsentence".Thisview
wasreiteratedinSectionAmbaramvs.TheStateofMadhyaPradesh59.SectionIn
SarveshwarPrasadSharmavs.StateofMadhyaPradesh,60theApex
Courtobservedthatinseveralcases,theCourthadindicatedguidelinesin
thisproblemareaoflifeanddeath,however,thesaidguidelineswere
neithercutanddrynorexhaustiveandthateachcasewoulddependupon
thetotalityofthefactsandcircumstancesandothermattersrevealed."
105.Inparas165and166ofBachanSingh(supra),itwasfurther
observedasunder;

"165.Thesoundnessorapplicationoftheother

propositionsinJagmohan,andthepremisesonwhichthey

rest,arenotaffectedinanywaybythelegislativechanges

sinceeffected.Onthecontrary,thesechangesreinforcethe

reasonsgiveninJagmohan,forholdingthattheimpugned

provisionsSectionofthePenalCodeandSectiontheCriminalProcedure

CodedonotoffendArticles14and21oftheConstitution.

Now,ParliamenthasinSection354(3)givenabroadand

clearguide-linewhichistoservethepurposeoflodestarto

thecourtintheexerciseofitssentencingdiscretion.
Parliamenthasadvisedlynotrestrictedthissentencing

discretionfurther,as,initslegislativejudgment,itisneither

possiblenordesirabletodoso.Parliamentcouldnotbutbe

awarethatsincetheSectionAmendingAct26of1955,deathpenalty

hasbeenimposedbycourtsonanextremelysmall

percentageofpersonsconvictedofmurder--afactwhich

59AIR1976SC2196

60(1977)4SCC596
SQPathan110/117
:::Uploadedon-03/06/201904/06/201902:17:06:::

wp.1181.1182.14527.18.(J).doc
demonstratesthatcourtshavegenerallyexercisedtheir

discretionininflictingthisextremepenaltywithgreat

circumspection,cautionandrestraint.Cognizantofthepast

experienceoftheadministrationofdeathpenaltyinIndia,

Parliament,initswisdom,thoughtitbestandsafetoleave

theimpositionofthisgravestpunishmentingravestcasesof

murder,tothejudicialdiscretionofthecourtswhichare

mannedbypersonsofreason,experienceandstandinginthe

profession.Theexerciseofthissentencingdiscretioncannot

besaidtobeuntrammelledandunguided.Itisexercised

judiciallyinaccordancewithwellrecognizedprinciples

crystallizedbyjudicialdecisions,directedalongthebroad

contoursoflegislativepolicytowardsthesignpostsenacted

inSection354(3).


166.ThenewSection235(2)addstothenumberof

severalothersafeguardswhichwereembodiedinSectionthe

CriminalProcedureCodeof1898andhavebeenre-enacted

inSectiontheCodeof1973.Then,theerrorsintheexerciseofthis

guidedjudicialdiscretionareliabletobecorrectedbythe

superiorcourts.TheprocedureprovidedinSectionCriminal

ProcedureCodeforimposingcapitalpunishmentformurder

andsomeothercapitalcrimesunderSectionthePenalCodecannot,

byanyreckoning,besaidtobeunfair,unreasonableand

unjust.Norcanitbesaidthatthissentencingdiscretion,with

whichthecourtsareinvested,amountstodelegationofits

poweroflegislationbyParliament.Theargumenttothat

effectisentirelymisconceived.Wewould,therefore,reaffirm

theviewtakenbythisCourtinJagmohan,andholdthatthe

impugnedprovisionsdonotviolateArticles14,19and21of

theConstitution."(emphasissupplied)
SQPathan111/117
:::Uploadedon-03/06/201904/06/201902:17:06:::

wp.1181.1182.14527.18.(J).doc
106.ThelawexplainedabovebytheApexCourtholdsgoodeven
today.WiththeinsertionofSection376-E,noseparatecorresponding
changewasrequiredintheprocedurallawandthatSection211(7)Cr.P.C
containssufficientguidelines,totakecareofsuchaneventuality.The
challengetoSection376-EIPConahypotheticalgroundthatitwouldlead
toa`prosecutorialabuse'(discrimination)isunsustainableandpossibility
ofitsabuse,ifany,cannotformagroundtochallengetheconstitutional
validityofsaidSection.ThePetitionerswouldrequiretochallengethe
same,intheAppealspreferredbythemagainsttheirconviction.
107.Wemaynote,thattheConstitutionBenchoftheApexCourtin
Mithu(supra),struckdownSection303IPC,asunconstitutional,asthere
wasnojudicialdiscretiontoawardasentenceotherthandeath.Onlyone
sentence,whichisofdeath,wasprescribedunderSection303IPC.Inthis
context,theApexCourttooktheviewthatthemandatorydeathsentence
deprivedtheCourtofitswiseandbeneficialdiscretioninthematteroflife
anddeath,makingitharsh,unjustandunfair.Sameisnotthecasehere.In
thecaseinhand,theParliamenthasprescribedalternativesentences,
leavingitfortheCourtsconcernedtoawardwhatisconsideredsuitablein
SQPathan112/117
:::Uploadedon-03/06/201904/06/201902:17:06:::

wp.1181.1182.14527.18.(J).doc
thefactsandcircumstancesofagivencase,havingregardtothegravity,
severityandbarbarityoftheoffence.


108.Section376-Edoesnotforecloseanalternativesentenceand
doesnot,inanyway,makedeathmandatory.Thesentenceprescribedfor
repeatoffenceunderSection376-Eiseither,imprisonmentforlifewhich
meansfortheremainderofone'slifeorwithdeath.Letusconsiderthe
punishmentsstipulatedfortheoffenceslistedinSection376-E.Theoffence
underSection376ispunishablewithrigorousimprisonmentofeither
descriptionforatermwhichshallnotbelessthantenyears,butwhichmay
extendtoimprisonmentforlife,andalsowithfine.Thepunishment
prescribedunderSection376-A,forcausingdeathorpersistentvegetative
stateofthevictimis,rigorousimprisonmentforatermwhichshallnotbe
lessthantwentyyears,butwhichmayextendtoimprisonmentforlife,
whichshallmeanimprisonmentfortheremainderofthatperson'snatural
life,orwithdeath.ThepunishmentunderSection376-Dforgangrapeis,
rigorousimprisonmentforatermwhichshallnotbelessthantwentyyears,
butwhichmayextendtolife,whichmeans,imprisonmentfortheremainder
ofthatperson'snaturallife,andwithfine.Theenhancedpunishment
SQPathan113/117
:::Uploadedon-03/06/201904/06/201902:17:06:::

wp.1181.1182.14527.18.(J).doc
prescribedunderSection376-Eforrepeatoffenceisimprisonmentfor
remainderofone'slifeordeath,theobjectbeingtosendastrongsignalto
theaccusedpersonsnottoindulgeintheoffenceofrape.Repeatrapeisto
beviewedmoreseriouslyandtherefore,amorestringentpunishmentis
prescribed.ThislogicneedstobeseeninSection376-E.Itisobvious,
thattheParliamentwasawareoftheneedsofthesocietyandthelegal
fetters,whichdidnotpermitittoprovide"death",astheonlyapt
punishmentforthesecondprovedoffence,afterthefirstconviction.In
2018,thisintentionoftheParliamentbecamemoreexplicit,whenitadded
Sections376-ABandSection376-DBtotheSectionIPCandprovidedstringent
punishmentforthefirstoffenceitselfi.e.aminimumoftwentyyears
imprisonment,whichmayextendtoimprisonmentforlife,whichshall
meanimprisonmentfortheremainderofthatperson'slifeandwithfineor
withdeath.


109.TheParliament,whilemakingitsdesireclearalsodidnot
encroachontheCourt'spoweranddiscretion,andleftthefieldof
punishmentopenfortheCourt,tochoosea"just"punishment.Ithas,
SQPathan114/117
:::Uploadedon-03/06/201904/06/201902:17:06:::

wp.1181.1182.14527.18.(J).doc
therefore,keptthechoiceinthearea,betweenlifeimprisonmentforrestof
one'snaturallifeordeath,openfortheCourttoselectandtoformulatethe
mostdeservingpunishment,inthefactsofthecase.Ithas,therefore,not
madedeathmandatoryunderSection376-Eandhasleftthescopeforits
applicationonvariousfactors,havingabearingon"deathpenalty".Choice
leftopenbySection376-Eitselfattractsthejudicialdiscretionandall
principlesgoverningtheawardofthedeathpenaltyasperSection354(3)
Cr.P.C.


110.Neither,theUnionofIndianortheStateacceptthatdeathis
mandatoryunderSection376-EIPC.WehavefoundthatSection376-E
IPCneitherintroducesadiscordantnotenorintroducesanynewparadigm
inthecriminaljusticeadministration.Legislativedevelopmentsrevealthat
itonlyaddstotheeffortsbeingmadebythenationtoinfusedeterrencein
thewrongelementsandtocautionthemofseriousconsequenceswhich
mayensueiftheycontinuetotreadonthesameroad.Attemptisto
strengthenthelaw.ConvictsloosetheirlibertyunderSectionArticle21toacertain
extentandonewhohascommittedaheinousoffenceofrapeorhas
repeatedit,cannotbeallowedtoputhislifebeforethelifelongplightofthe
SQPathan115/117
:::Uploadedon-03/06/201904/06/201902:17:06:::

wp.1181.1182.14527.18.(J).doc
survivor.Needlesstostate,thatincaseswhereSection376-Eisapplied,
theaccusedwouldbeentitledtoalltheproceduralsafeguards,which
alreadyexistintheCr.P.C.Thus,thereisnovaguenessandconfusion
inasmuchas,thereexistsaprocedurewhichisjust,reasonableandfairto
dealwiththeimplementationofSection376-E.


111.AsfarasDr.Chaudhary'ssubmissionthattherehastobean
intervalbetweenpreviousconvictionandsubsequentoffence,thesamecan
beraisedbeforetheCourtdecidingtheconfirmationappeal.We,inthese
petitions,donotthinkitnecessarytodealwiththesame,asthechallenge
beforeusistheconstitutionalvalidityofSection376-E,onthegrounds
whichhavebeendiscussedindetailhereinabove.Although,wehave
upheldtheconstitutionalvalidityofSection376-EoftheIPC,itisalways
openforthepetitionerstochallengeitsapplicationtothefactsoftheircase,
intheirAppeals,whicharependingbeforetheDivisionBench.Similarly,
thesubmissionwithrespecttoapplicationofSection219ofCr.P.C.is
concernedi.e.whether,iftwooffencesofrapeoccurinayear,theycanbe
triedtogetherandthatinsuchasituation,therewouldbenoprevious
convictionandassuch,thequestionofapplyingSection376-Ewouldnot
SQPathan116/117
:::Uploadedon-03/06/201904/06/201902:17:06:::

wp.1181.1182.14527.18.(J).doc
arise,isagainamatterwhichcanberaisedbeforetheCourthearingthe
petitioners'appeals.


Havingregardtowhatisstatedhereinabove,withregardtothe
constitutionalvalidityofSection376-E,wedonotfindanymeritinthe
saidchallengeandaccordinglydismissthePetitions.
ThePetitionsareaccordinglydismissed,withnoorderasto
costs.Ruleisdischarged.


Before,wepart,wewouldbefailinginourduty,ifwedonot
acknowledgetheeffortstakenbyallthelearnedseniorcounselandtheir
teams,includingtheamicuscuriaeMr.Pondaandhisteam,andthe
valuableassistancerenderedbythem.


REVATIMOHITEDERE,J.B.P.DHARMADHIKARI,J.

SQPathan117/117
:::Uploadedon-03/06/201904/06/201902:17:06:::