Delhi High Court upholds conviction under section 307/376 observing that imposing inadequate sentences showing undue sympathy harms the justice system.

The Delhi High Court has dismissed an appeal of a 45 year old man convicted under section 307 / 376 of IPC holding that undue sympathy to impose inadequate sentences would do more harm to the justice system to undermine the public confidence in the efficacy of law and society could no longer endure under such serious threats.
 
The factual matrix leading to the filing of the present appeal are that the appellant committed rape upon the Prosecutrix and also attempted to commit her murder. The incident was conveyed to the police promptly and DD entry came to be recorded at Police Station Kotla Mubarak Pur. The investigating officer lodged the FIR. ‘X’ and the prosecutrix was medically examined and she recorded her 164 Cr. PC statement. The appellant was arrested and medically examined. Exhibits collected during investigation were sent to FSL for examination. Statements of witnesses conversant with the facts were recorded. Upon completion of investigation, a charge-sheet was filed against the appellant for commission of offences punishable under Sections 376/307 IPC. In order to establish its case, the prosecution examined twelve witnesses. In 313 Cr. PC statement the appellant denied his involvement in the crime and pleaded false implication. The trial resulted in his conviction. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied, the appellant filed an appeal before the High Court of Delhi.
 
The High Court observed thus:
 
“It is the duty of every court to award proper sentence having regard to the nature of the offence and the manner in which it was committed. Undue sympathy to impose inadequate sentence would do more harm to the justice system to undermine the public confidence in the efficacy of law and society could no longer endure under such serious threats. The Trial Court in the sentence order has noted sufficient reasons to award the penalty which are reproduced as under:
 
The convict in this case has committed the vile act of rape upon the prosecutrix. He also attempted to kill her. It is true that the convict is aged about 45 years and has a family to support but on the other hand we must see the plight of the prosecutrix, who was subjected to rape, which is universally considered to be amongst the most morally and physically, reprehensible crime in society and assault on the body, mind, privacy and the entire fabric of the victim. Her dignity is shredded. The social stigma attached to this crime is such that many times, a crime would go unreported by the victim.”
 

Vijay Vaidh vs. State