Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News
Upholding the appellant’s conviction for gang rape, the Court modified the sentence from imprisonment for the remainder of natural life to 20 years’ rigorous imprisonment with the benefit of remission after considering his young age, absence of criminal antecedents, satisfactory conduct in prison and the possibility of reformation.
“The sine qua non of the offence of rape is penetration, and not ejaculation. Ejaculation without penetration constitutes an attempt to commit rape and not actual rape.”
In her statement, the victim stated that firstly, her father committed forcible sexual intercourse with her, and after some days when she was sleeping at her paternal aunt’s house, then the convict, who was her paternal uncle, committed the same offence against her.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, overall evidence adduced by the prosecution, the mode and manner in which the incident had taken place, the Court opined that some reprieve in the matter of sentence deserved to be given to the convict who had been incarcerated since more than four years.
Calcutta High Court found no loopholes in the trial court’s analysis of the evidence, concluding that the appellant’s guilt under Section 304 IPC was proved beyond a reasonable doubt.
To identify whether the case of an accused under S. 302, IPC falls in the category of ‘rarest of the rare’ case, for the purpose of modification of sentence, it is no consideration by itself that the accused is a first-time offender and has no antecedents.