Supreme Court: In an appeal while examining the scope of the doctrine of proportionality in sentencing while considering whether imprisonment for the remainder of the convict’s natural life under Section 376-D, Penal Code, 1860 was justified, the Division Bench of Sanjay Karol* and Augustine George Masih, JJ., affirmed the conviction of the appellant under Section 376-D IPC, but modified the sentence from imprisonment for the remainder of natural life to rigorous imprisonment for 20 years with benefit of remission, if otherwise admissible in law, holding that while the statute mandates at least the minimum punishment, it does not require that every conviction must necessarily result in imprisonment for the remainder of natural life. Sentencing must conform to the doctrine of proportionality, thereby, “striking a judicious balance between the interest of the victim, society and the accused, after following the due process of law”.
Also Read: Subsequent Breakdown of Marriage No Ground to Revive Quashed Rape FIR: Delhi High Court
Brief Facts
The appellant was convicted for the offence of gang rape under Section 376-D IPC. The prosecution case was that the rape survivor had boarded a rickshaw late at night from Delhi Railway Station after the driver assured her that he would drop her home. Instead, he took her to a secluded place where another accused joined him, and both committed gang rape upon her.
Considering “the manner of commission of offence, brutality inflicted by accused persons”, the trial court held that the ends of justice would be served only by awarding imprisonment for the remainder of the convicts’ natural lives and hence, convicted both accused and sentenced them to rigorous imprisonment for the remainder of their natural lives along with a fine of ₹25,000 payable to the rape survivor.
The Delhi High Court independently reappreciated the evidence and affirmed both the conviction and sentence in toto.
Before the Supreme Court, the appellant did not challenge his conviction. Notice was confined solely to the question of the quantum of sentence, i.e. whether the sentence satisfied the doctrine of proportionality.
Issues for Determination
-
Whether the sentence of imprisonment for the remainder of the appellant’s natural life was proportionate to the facts of the case?
-
Whether the appellant’s age, absence of criminal antecedents, good conduct in prison and possibility of reformation justified modification of sentence while maintaining the conviction?
Analysis
The Court discussed the sentencing jurisprudence. Referring to Justice P.N. Bhagwati’s dissent in Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab, (1982) 3 SCC 24, the Court reiterated that “the sentence imposed must be proportionate to the offence” and recognised proportionality as an important constitutional principle.
Relying upon Surinder Singh v. State (UT of Chandigarh), (2021) 20 SCC 24, the Court observed that proportionality requires balancing the gravity of the offence with the offender’s conduct and the objectives of criminal justice. While punishment must adequately reflect public condemnation, judicial discretion cannot be exercised arbitrarily or on non-relevant considerations.
The Court reiterated that sentencing serves punitive, deterrent and protective purposes. Its object is to protect society while ensuring that punishment remains proportionate. The Court emphasised that punishment must strike “a judicious balance between the interest of the victim, society and the accused”.
Summarising the governing principles emerging from earlier decisions in Allauddin Mian v. State of Bihar, (1989) 3 SCC 5; Navas v. State of Kerala, (2024) 14 SCC 82; Parsuram v. State of M.P., (2019) 8 SCC 382 and Sevaka Perumal v. State of T.N., (1991) 3 SCC 471, the Court held that sentencing must, among other things, correspond to the nature and gravity of the offence; adequately protect societal interests; account for deterrence; consider the motive and conduct of the offender; examine premeditation; consider the age and criminal antecedents of the accused; account for the number of victims; disregard irrelevant considerations such as religion or caste; evaluate the possibility of reformation; and consider abuse of trust or personal relationships wherever applicable. The Court emphasised that these considerations are illustrative and not exhaustive, and that a holistic assessment of every case is indispensable before imposing punishment.
The Court analysed several precedents where death sentences or extremely severe punishments had been modified after considering mitigating circumstances. It referred to Shankar Kisanrao Khade v. State of Maharashtra, (2013) 5 SCC 546; Rajkumar v. State of M.P., (2014) 5 SCC 353; Selvam v. State, (2014) 12 SCC 274; Sundar v. State, (2024) 12 SCC 764; and Ravinder Singh v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2024) 2 SCC 323, observing that factors such as youthful age, absence of criminal antecedents, good prison conduct and the possibility of reformation had persuaded this Court to substitute harsher punishments with long fixed-term imprisonment without undermining the seriousness of the offences.
Applying these principles, the Court identified several mitigating circumstances in favour of the appellant, such as he had no criminal antecedents; he was only 25 years old when the offence was committed; there existed a possibility of reformation; the State produced no material demonstrating that reformation was impossible; and according to the appellant, his prison conduct over nearly 10 years, including remission, had remained satisfactory, which was not disputed by the State.
At the same time, the Court stressed that gang rape is a heinous offence not merely against the rape survivor but “against the society at large”. It observed that despite legal reforms after the Nirbhaya incident, crimes of sexual violence continue unabated and require stern judicial response.
The Court also highlighted that Section 376-D IPC, as substituted by the Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, 2013, prescribes a mandatory minimum punishment of 20 years’ imprisonment, while permitting imprisonment for the remainder of natural life in appropriate cases. The earlier discretion to award a lesser sentence for “adequate and special reasons” no longer exists, reflecting legislative recognition of the seriousness of the offence.
Decision
Balancing aggravating and mitigating circumstances, the Court partly allowed the appeal, affirmed the conviction of the appellant under Section 376D IPC, but modified the sentence from imprisonment for the remainder of natural life to rigorous imprisonment for 20 years with benefit of remission, if any.
[Ehsaan v. State (NCT of Delhi), 2026 INSC 720, decided on 20-7-2026]
*Judgment Authored by Justice Sanjay Karol
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Appellant: Mr. Vardhman Kaushik, AOR Ms. Kavya Shukla, Adv. Mr. Mayank Sharma, Adv. Mr. Arindam Sarin, Adv. Ms. Priya Nair, Adv.
For the Respondent: Mr. Kankamedla Ravindra Kumar, ASG Mr. Devraj Bhattacharjee, Adv. Mr. Prashant Singh II, Adv. Mr. Gaurang Bhushan, Adv. Mr. Udit Dedhiya, Adv. Mr. S.N.Terdal, AOR Mr. Mukesh Kumar Maroria, AOR
Buy Penal Code, 1860 HERE
