Was sentenced to life imprisonment, sought relief from the court, was blown away after hearing the new order of the court

In the year 2012, the demand for relief to the convicts challenging the life sentence in the gang rape and murder case of a young woman (24 to 26 years) became costly. A bench of Justice Mukta Gupta and Justice Anish Dayal observed that the offense committed by the appellants Pardeep and Sikandar Singh alias Soni was of a serious nature.

That is why the appellants were asked to appear before the court and explain why their sentence should not be fixed for a period exceeding 14 years. The bench said that after considering the arguments of the convicts in person and through counsel on the issue of punishment, this court, in exercise of the jurisdiction conferred by the Supreme Court in the judgment delivered in Sriharan’s case, would at least allow the appellants without exemption. orders a sentence of imprisonment for life of twenty years.

What Does the bench said?

The bench said that the prosecution was successful in proving the entire case beyond doubt and. The bench said that the trial court is empowered to impose a sentence of 14 years in the case of life imprisonment, but considering the gravity of the offence, this court, while modifying the order of punishment, is liable to punishment for an offense punishable under section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code. punishable with imprisonment for life shall be punishable with rigorous imprisonment of not less than 20 years without remission.

The bench said that the nature of the injuries in the post-mortem report of the girl made it clear that she bravely faced the convicts, who physically tortured her. She suffered severe injuries on her body and after raping her, finally strangled her. The culprits tried to erase the evidence by throwing the dead body on the side of the road and removed the body clothes from the dead body and kept it at different places. The court also upheld the sentence of life imprisonment for the misdemeanor of the trial court in the offense of destruction of evidence and giving false information.

This is the case

On 24 April 2012, the Nehru Place police station recovered the body of a young woman in a semi-naked state. There was blood oozing from the mouth, nose and ears and there were bruises on the face. The girl’s black jeans were recovered ten steps away. The police first arrested Pardeep on 13 May 2012 and on his behest, the police arrested another accused Sikander Singh alias Soni.

After the arrest of both, the girl’s purse and slippers were recovered on their behest. In this case, the prosecution had examined 43 witnesses. At the same time, the convicts had argued that there was no basis for punishment as the trial court had sentenced the sentence on the basis of circumstantial evidence. They also argued that there was no public witness to the arrest of the appellant Pradeep and the investigating officer had not given any notice to join the investigation.