Express News Service By

The Supreme Court on Tuesday ruled that a compromise between a rape victim and the perpetrator should not be a ground for awarding a lesser punishment to the convict.

While hearing the petition of two rape convicts from Haryana, a Bench of Chief Justice P Sathasivam, Justice Ranjana Prakash Desai and Justice Ranjan Gogoi, said the “trend of compromise exhibits stark insensitivity to the need for proportionate punishments”.

The SC further observed that religion, race, caste, economic or social status of the accused or the victim, long pendency of the trial, the rapist’s offer to marry the victim or the fact that the victim is married and settled in life cannot be construed as special factors for reducing the sentence prescribed by the statute.

In the morning of December 28, 1995, Shimbu and Balu Ram in Nangal Durgu, Haryana, forcibly took a woman into Balu’s shop when she had gone out of her home. They confined and repeatedly raped her for two days. An Additional Sessions Judge sentenced both to 10 years’ rigorous imprisonment in a 1998 verdict later upheld by the HC.

In the apex court, counsel for the convicts submitted that a settlement was arrived at between the duo and the woman on December 24, 2011, and demanded that the jail term be reduced.

Writing the judgment, Justice Sathasivam said: “A compromise entered into between the parties cannot be construed as a leading factor based on which a lesser punishment can be awarded. To avoid harassment to the victim, it would not be safe in considering the compromise arrived at in rape cases to be a ground for the court to exercise the discretionary power under the provision of Section 376(2) of the IPC.”

“The power under the provision should not be used indiscriminately in a casual manner for the reason that an exception clause requires strict interpretation,” Justice Sathasivam said.

“This is another opportunity to inform the subordinate courts and the HCs that despite stringent provisions for rape under Section 376 of the IPC, many courts had taken a softer view while awarding sentences. This court has noticed that a few subordinate courts and HCs have reduced the sentence of the accused to the period already undergone, by taking aid of Section 376 (2) of the IPC,” he said.