Review – Clarification sought on quantum of sentence – In judgment dated 19.04.2022 for which review is sought, the petitioner-accused was held guilty and punished for the offences was under ss.376(2)(i), 376(2)(m) and under s.376(A) of IPC as also under s.5 (i) and s.5 (m) read with s.6 of the POCSO Act – In judgment dated 19.04.2022, the Court, while commuting the sentence of death for the sentence of life imprisonment for the offence punishable under s.302 of IPC, and while imposing sentence to undergo imprisonment for 20 years and not imprisonment for the remainder of his natural life for the offence under s.376A, IPC tried to balance the scales of retributive justice and restorative justice – If the sentence of life imprisonment was imposed by the Sessions Court and confirmed by the High Court, and also by this Court, then the life imprisonment would mean imprisonment for the remainder of the petitioner’s (original appellant’s) natural life – The Court had consciously imposed the sentence of 20 years for the offence under s.376A – Therefore appellant-petitioner shall undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 20 years for the offence – The sentence imposed for the offence under ss.376(2)(i) and 376(2)(m) of IPC and for the offence under ss.5(i) and 5(m) read with s.6 of the POCSO Act is modified, so as to commensurate the said sentences with the sentence imposed for the offence under s.376(A) of IPC, and accordingly sentence is imposed directing the petitioner to undergo imprisonment for a period of twenty years instead of life imprisonment for the said offences – The judgment and order dated 19.04.2022 is accordingly corrected and modified to that extent.
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.