The Bombay High Court on Thursday said the three convicts in the Shakti Mills rape case did not deserve any leniency for the heinous acts committed by them. The court made this observation while converting his death sentence to life imprisonment.
In its 108-page detailed order, the high court explained Section 376E of the Indian Penal Code, the process of law to be followed by a constitutional court, and the assimilation of an offender into society.
Section 376E is not a real offense
The High Court held that Section 376E was brought in the Indian Penal Code as an enhanced punishment for the punishment of a person convicted of a similar offense more than once.
Reading: They threatened to kill me with a beer bottle: Shakti Mills gangrape victim told horrifying
The Bench observed that Section 376E is not a genuine offence, but a punishment for repeat offenders under Sections 376D, 376DA, 376DB of the IPC.
Interpreting the section, the order said that it (section) shall mean that after conviction for the first time for a similar offence, the sentence of death may be imposed in the case.
death penalty not mandate
The Court found that the provisions of the Indian Penal Code did not contain a mandatory provision which did not provide for any alternative punishment other than death.
There is no provision for compulsory death penalty in the law.
“Though the crime is barbaric and heinous, it cannot be said on the threshold that the accused deserves only the death penalty and nothing less”, the order said.
Because of this the death sentence was commuted to life imprisonment.
no room for improvement
The Court observed that in the present case the conduct of the convicts and their statements proved that they were beyond correction as it would be difficult for the society to live with such men who disrespect women.
The order said, “The convicts in the present case do not deserve to mingle with the society, as it will be difficult to survive in a society of men who look upon women with ridicule, depravity, contempt and objects of desire.” “
The court referred to the confession that the convicts had allegedly given to the victim saying that “she is not the first to satisfy her lust” to conclude that the perpetrators were beyond reform or rehabilitation.
For this reason, the Court also concluded that “the accused do not deserve any leniency, sympathy or sympathy.”
Duties as Constitutional Court
The bench said that there was a lot of resentment among the people regarding the matter as it had shaken the public conscience. However, as a constitutional court, it was his duty to decide a case impartially.
“In any case, a Constitutional Court cannot pass a sentence merely by taking into account the public outrage, it is our bounden duty to consider the matter impartially.” The bench insisted.
They were aware that annulment of the death penalty in such a case would appear as if the court was playing “a majoritarian role”.
However, as a constitutional court, they were bound to take into account not only individual rights (of the victim and the accused) but also “procedure established by law”.
The Court also observed that while they may not be oblivious to the procedure established by law and such incidents have shaken the conscience of the society, it does not entitle them to ignore the procedure established by law.
end of justice meeting
In the light of the discussion in the order, the Court held that the convicts should be given rigorous imprisonment for the rest of their natural life to make repentance for the offense committed by them.
“Every day, the rising sun reminded them of the barbaric acts they had committed and the night carried them with a heavy heart filled with guilt and remorse.” The order said.
“The sentence of rigorous imprisonment for the remainder of his natural life without remission, parole or furlough shall meet the end of justice,” the court concluded.