38.6c New Delhi, India, Tuesday, December 09, 2025
Top Stories Supreme Court
Political NEWS Legislative Corner Celebstreet International Videos
Subscribe Contact Us
close
Judiciary

"Not Death, But Every Day the Rising Sun Would Remind them of the Barbaric Acts Committed by them": Bombay High Court on Commuting Death Sentence in Shakti Mills Gang Rape

By Dolly chhabda      03 December, 2021 08:14 PM      0 Comments

The Bombay High Court on Thursday (November 25, 2021) commuted the death penalty given to three men who gangraped a photojournalist in Mumbai in 2013 to life sentence, saying that the convicted men deserved to repent their offence and death  will put an end to the process of repentance, suffering and mental agony.

Observing that the convicts did not deserve any leniency, empathy or sympathy, a division bench of Justices Sadhana Jadhav and Prithviraj Chavan refused to confirm the death penalty awarded to Vijay Jadhav, Mohammad Qasim Bengali Shaikh and Mohammad Ansari, and commuted their sentence.

Although the offence is barbaric and heinous, it cannot be said at the threshold that the accused deserve only death penalty and nothing less than that, the bench said.

They deserve imprisonment for life i.e. for the remainder of their natural life... Every day the rising sun would remind them of the barbaric acts committed by them and the night would lay them with a heavy heart filled with guilt and remorse, said the bench, adding that the convicts did not deserve to assimilate with the society, as it would be difficult to survive in a society of such men who look upon women with derision, depravity, contempt and objects of desire.

On August 22, 2013, a 23-year-old photojournalist was gang-raped in the defunct Shakti Mills compound. Police investigation in the case revealed that a similar incident occurred on July 31, 2013, when an 18-year-old call centre employee was gang-raped by the same group at the same place.

In March 2014, a sessions court in Mumbai convicted the three men under sections 376 (D) (rape by one or more persons constituting a group or acting in furtherance of common intention), 376 (E) (punishment for repeat offence under section 376), 377 (voluntary carnal intercourse with man or woman), 354-A(iii) (showing pornography against the will of a woman), 354(B) (assault or use of criminal force on any woman or abets such act with the intention of disrobing or compelling her to be naked), 341 (wrongful restraint), 342 (wrongful confinement), 323 (voluntarily causing hurt), 506(II) (threat to cause death or grievous hurt), 201 (knowledge of act being an offence) all to be read with Section 120-B (punishment for criminal conspiracy) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), besides Section 67 (punishment for publishing or transmitting obscene material in electronic form) of the Information Technology Act, 2000.

On April 4, 2014, the three were awarded the death sentence after the prosecution invoked Section 376E (repeated offenders) of the IPC. Both the trials were held simultaneously and three were convicted in both cases on the same day.

Section 376 (E) of the IPC was added through the Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, 2013, and was introduced following the 2012 Delhi gang-rape and murder case, providing life imprisonment or death sentence for second or subsequent convictions in certain rape cases, including gang-rapes.

On Thursday ( November, 2021), seven years after being sentenced to death, the high court started hearing the plea by the Maharashtra government seeking confirmation of the death sentence. While the bench upheld the conviction by the sessions court, it commuted their death sentence to rigorous imprisonment for life.

The HC bench also took into consideration the observations of the Law Commission that the death penalty does not serve the penological goal of deterrence any more than life imprisonment. We, therefore, feel that a sentence of rigorous imprisonment for the remainder of their natural life without any remission, parole or furlough would meet the ends of justice, it said.



Share this article:



Leave a feedback about this
TRENDING NEWS

sc-questions-precedent-on-contractual-bars-to-arbitration-claims-refers-bharat-drilling-to-larger-bench
Trending Judiciary
SC Questions Precedent on Contractual Bars to Arbitration Claims, Refers ‘Bharat Drilling’ to Larger Bench [Read Judgment]

Supreme Court refers the 2009 Bharat Drilling ruling to a larger bench, questioning its use in interpreting contractual bars on arbitration claims.

08 December, 2025 04:45 PM
j-and-k-high-court-upholds-dismissal-of-injunction-plea-in-agrarian-reforms-dispute
Trending Judiciary
J&K High Court Upholds Dismissal of Injunction Plea in Agrarian Reforms Dispute [Read Order]

J&K High Court upholds dismissal of injunction plea, ruling that agrarian disputes fall under Agrarian Reforms Act authorities, not civil courts.

08 December, 2025 05:21 PM

TOP STORIES

hostile-india-china-ties-no-extradition-treaty-allahabad-hc-denies-bail-to-chinese-national-in-visa-forgery-case
Trending Judiciary
Hostile India–China Ties, No Extradition Treaty: Allahabad HC Denies Bail to Chinese National in Visa Forgery Case [Read Order]

Allahabad High Court denies bail to a Chinese national accused of visa tampering and forging Indian IDs, citing hostile India–China ties and no extradition treaty.

03 December, 2025 12:53 AM
attachment-before-judgment-cannot-cover-property-sold-prior-to-suit-filing-sc
Trending Judiciary
Attachment Before Judgment Cannot Cover Property Sold Prior to Suit Filing: SC [Read Judgment]

Supreme Court holds that property transferred before a suit cannot be attached under Order 38 Rule 5; fraud allegations must be pursued separately under Section 53 TP Act.

03 December, 2025 01:30 AM
sc-holds-no-review-or-appeal-maintainable-against-order-appointing-arbitrator
Trending Judiciary
SC Holds No Review Or Appeal Maintainable Against Order Appointing Arbitrator [Read Judgment]

Supreme Court rules that no review, recall or appeal lies against a Section 11 arbitrator appointment order, reaffirming minimal judicial interference in arbitration.

03 December, 2025 01:40 AM
partner-cannot-invoke-arbitration-clause-without-express-authorisation-of-other-partners-kerala-hc
Trending Judiciary
Partner Cannot Invoke Arbitration Clause Without Express Authorisation of Other Partners: Kerala HC [Read Order]

Kerala High Court rules that a partner cannot invoke an arbitration clause or seek appointment of an arbitrator without express authorisation from co-partners.

03 December, 2025 05:19 PM

ADVERTISEMENT


Join Group

Signup for Our Newsletter

Get Exclusive access to members only content by email