State* vs Giana

We have heard learned Additional Advocate General appearing on behalf of the State and learned defence counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents-convicted persons upon quantum of sentence.

Learned Additional Advocate General appearing on behalf of the State submits that convicted persons have committed heinous offence of rape and deterrent punishment be awarded in order to maintain majesty of law. On contrary learned defence counsel appearing on behalf of convicted persons submits that convicted persons are first offenders and lenient view be adopted keeping in view the age of convicted persons and keeping in view the responsibilities of convicted persons towards their families.

We have considered the submissions of learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the State and learned defence counsel appearing on behalf of convicted persons carefully upon quantum of sentence. Hon''ble Apex Court of India in case reported in Gurmukh Singh Vs. State of Haryana, laid down the followings factors which are to be kept in mind at the time of granting sentence to convicted persons. (1) Motive or previous enmity. (2) Whether the incident had taken place on the spur of the moment. (3) Intention/knowledge of accused while inflicting the blow or injury. (4) Whether the death ensued instantaneously or the victim died after several days. (5) Gravity, dimension and nature of injury. (6) Age and general health condition of the convicted. (7) Whether the injury was caused without pre-meditation in a sudden fight. (8) Nature and size of weapon used for inflicting the injury and the force with which the blow was inflicted. (9) Criminal background and adverse history of the convicted. (10) Whether the injury inflicted was not sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death but the death was because of shock. (11) Number of other criminal cases pending against the convicted. (12) Incident occurred within the family members or close relations. (13) Conduct and behaviour of the convicted after the incident.

In present case co-convicted Giana convicted under Sections 376, 341, 506 read with section 34 of Indian Penal Code and co-convicted Kalu Ram convicted under Sections 511 read with Section 376 IPC and u/s 341 and 506 read with Section 34 IPC. It is well settled law that offence of rape is offence against society. Murder destroys the physical body of victim but rapist degrades very soul of helpless female. Keeping in view the manner in which rape was committed upon prosecutrix and keeping in view the age of convicted persons and responsibilities of convicted persons towards their family members and keeping in view the majesty of law, we sentence the convicted persons as follows:-

All sentences shall run concurrently. Period of custody during investigation, inquiry and trial will be set off. Certified copy of this judgment and sentence will be sent to the District Magistrate as required u/s 365 of Code of Criminal Procedure. Certified copy of this judgment and sentence be also supplied to convicted persons forthwith today itself free of cost by learned Registrar (Judicial). Case property will be confiscated to State of H.P. after the expiry of period of filing of further legal proceedings. Warrant of execution of sentence be issued to the Superintendent Jail forthwith for compliance by learned Registrar (Judicial) in accordance with law.

* For conviction order, please see State of Himachal Pradesh Vs. Giana