BOMBAY HIGH COURT COMMUTED THE DEATH PENALTY TO LIFE IMPRISONMENT OF SHAKTI MILLS GANG-RAPE CONVICTS

The Bombay High court recently passed an order of death penalty against three offenders convicted in the 2013 shakti mills gang rape case. In this incident, the three convicts gang-raped a 23-year-old photojournalist in the Shakti mills area of Mumbai. The session court passed an order of death penalty on the grounds that they are repeat offenders. 

Justices SS Jadhav and PK Chavan upheld the judgment passed by the session court and reduced the sentence into rigorous imprisonment of life.

"Constitutional Court cannot award punishment based on public opinion. While setting aside the death sentence, it may be said that we took a counter majority view, but the Constitutional Court is to follow the procedure," the High Court held.

After going through its 100-page judgment of both cases of rape, the Court announced that a heinous crime had been committed, which affects the supreme honor of the victim and affects public conscience.

The Court was hearing the Maharashtra government's reference plea to confirm the death sentence against the three convicts. The convicts themselves did not file any appeal against their conviction or sentence. They have also been convicted in another case of rape in the same area for raping a 19-year-old operator. The three men were convicted in both cases of rape on the same day. The Court awarded death sentences to the convicts based on the crime committed in both cases.

The two convicts had earlier approached the High Court by challenging the constitutional validity of section 376E. Section 376E was added after the horrifying incident of the Nirbhaya gang-rape case of Delhi in 2012. This section provided capital punishment for repeated offenses. 

The High Court started hearing pleas by the Maharashtra government in regards to the confirmation of the death sentence to the three convicts. Adv. Yug Mohit Chaudhry and Payoshi Roy were against the passing of orders as it was based on an incorrect application of Section 376E. The advocates submitted that the trial was conducted unfairly, and hence fair opportunity should be given to them. They also pinpointed that their impoverished background and socio-economic status prompted them to become violent. 

Author: Papiha Ghoshal