The Supreme Court has refused to show leniency to a convict involved in a gang rape case that occurred nearly 35 years ago in Himachal Pradesh, ordering him to surrender and complete the remainder of his three-year sentence. This decision comes in light of the severe nature of the crime and despite the lengthy passage of time since the incident.
The convict, identified as Vijay, had secured bail on May 7, 2018, over a year after being convicted by the Himachal Pradesh High Court in March 2017. Vijay was among the five individuals sentenced in this case.
A bench comprising Justices AS Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan emphasised the seriousness of the offence, stating, “Considering the gravity of the offence, he cannot be shown further leniency. Therefore, the accused, Vijay, must undergo the remaining sentence.”
The court has granted Vijay one month to surrender before the trial court.
The incident occurred on July 8, 1989, when Vijay attempted to befriend the victim at a video parlour. He lured her to a secluded area, where he and his five friends gang-raped her. Initially, the trial court acquitted all six accused, accepting their defence that the intercourse was consensual.
The Himachal Pradesh High Court overturned this acquittal in March 2008, ordering a retrial for the accused on gang rape charges. During this retrial, one of the accused passed away. In September 2008, the Sessions Court again acquitted the remaining accused. However, the state appealed this decision, leading to the High Court’s March 2017 order convicting Vijay and the others.
While the Supreme Court upheld the High Court’s conviction, it declined the state’s appeal to increase the sentence, noting the significant time elapsed since the crime. “In the facts of the case, enhancement in sentence is not justified nearly 35 years after the incident,” the court concluded.
This ruling highlights the judiciary’s approach to addressing cases involving severe sexual offences, demonstrating its commitment to upholding justice and ensuring proportional sentencing. By refusing leniency to the convict in this 35-year-old gang rape case, despite the considerable passage of time, the Supreme Court sends a clear message about the gravity of such crimes and the need for accountability.
However, this decision also prompts questions about the consistency of the apex court’s stance across different cases. Will it maintain this strong stance in other instances involving similar offences?
The public and legal observers are left to ponder whether this ruling sets a precedent for future cases and signals a broader shift in the judiciary’s approach to addressing sexual offences. As such, the decision not only serves as a milestone in this particular case but also raises broader implications for the judicial handling of such sensitive matters in the future.
Comments