Deterrent punishment for rapists necessary: Bombay high court refuses to reduce sentence of three

Holding that the accused had taken advantage of the helplessness of the woman and raped her and subjected her to extreme trauma, the Bombay high court said it was not inclined to reduce the sentence and hence dismissed the appeals

The Bombay high court (HC) has said that though there were convictions in crimes against women the sentences were not proportionate to the gravity and magnitude of the offence. Hence, to ensure that the victim of a crime, as also the society, has the satisfaction that justice has been done, HC refused to reduce the sentence of three men convicted for raping a woman in Pune.

To ensure that the victim of a crime, as also the society, has the satisfaction that justice has been done, the Bombay high court refused to reduce the sentence of three men convicted for raping a woman in Pune.

“The sentencing policy adopted by the courts, in such cases, ought to have a stricter yardstick so as to act as a deterrent,” said the division bench of justice Sadhana Jadhav and justice Sarang Kotwal, while upholding the sentence headed down to Ranjeet Gade, Ganesh Kamble and Subhash Bhosale, all convicted by Pune sessions court on October 21, 2011.

“There are a shockingly large number of cases where the sentence of punishment awarded to the accused is not in proportion to the gravity and magnitude of the offence, thereby encouraging the criminal and in the ultimate making justice suffer, by weakening the system’s credibility,” the bench added.

The trio was accused of raping a woman on April 1, 2010, and then leaving her at her place of residence.

According to the complaint filed by the woman with Pune Police, she was married and was originally from Nagpur. She had travelled to the US with her husband and returned to India in March 2010. Though her husband returned to the US thereafter, as she had a Master’s degree she worked in a private hospital. On April 1, 2010, as she was unable to get a bus to go to a seminar, when she was offered a ride in a car by two of the accused, she assumed the car to be of a call centre and as they were going in the direction of the seminar venue, she boarded it.

However, rather than taking her to the venue the duo drove the car from one place to another and also picked up the third accused. She was gagged and threatened and then told to call her mother but not disclose her situation else she would be raped by 8-10 persons. Later the trio took her to a secluded spot and raped her and then dropped her near her residence.

The advocates for the convicts argued that the trio had been convicted based on the witness account and their identification by the survivor which was questionable as the police had already shown the photo of one of the accused to her before the identification parade. Further, it was argued that the allegation of rape was false as the woman had consented to the sexual intercourse.

The advocates further stated that the trial court had convicted the trio for conspiring, wrongful confinement, rape, gang rape and criminal intimidation and sentenced them to life imprisonment. The advocates pleaded that as the accused had been in jail since 2010, some leniency should be shown, and the sentence is reduced.

Additional public prosecutor S V Sonawane however argued that the identification parade and DNA evidence clearly showed that the trio had raped the woman and as she had refuted the claim of consensual sex, the trial court was right in meting out the life sentence, hence the HC should not entertain the appeals.

After hearing the submissions, the court held that in light of the crime against another woman in Pune wherein she was raped the criminal sentencing by the Courts had become a subject of concern.

Holding that the accused had taken advantage of the helplessness of the woman and raped her and subjected her to extreme trauma, the high court said it was not inclined to reduce the sentence and hence dismissed the appeals.

The court while appreciating the sentence meted out by the trial court judge however expressed dismay at the way in which the judge had gone into the details of the rape even while the survivor was uncomfortable disclosing it and said that such a practice should be avoided.