Victim Suffered Significant Emotional, Mental & Physical Trauma Fighting For Justice: Delhi High Court Sentences Women To 10 Years Imprisonment For Abetting Rape

The Delhi High Court has awarded ten years of rigorous imprisonment to a woman for abetting the commission of the offence of rape by her minor brother in 2013.

Although the respondent requested a lighter sentence because she had a five-year-old child and had already faced a decade-long trial, the Court found that she was a repeat offender involved in other serious criminal cases, including a murder charge.

The Court observed that the convict’s continued involvement in grave offences demonstrated a lack of reformation and a continuing pattern of criminal behaviour, making a lenient approach wholly misplaced

The Bench of Justice Chandshekharan Sudha observed, "The respondent/convict played an active and deliberate role in luring PW3, facilitated the commission of rape, remained present during the act, and subsequently also threatened her. Even after the commission of the present offence, the conduct of the respondent/convict has not shown any reformation. On the contrary, as brought on record, she has been subsequently involved in multiple criminal cases, including in Section 302 IPC and is presently in judicial custody. This indicates a continuing pattern of criminal behaviour rather than an isolated incident. The subsequent involvement of the convict in grave offences demonstrates that the respondent/convict has not stopped engaging in criminal activities."

APP Utkarsh appeared for the State, while Advocate Deepak Jakhar appeared for the Respondent.

Facts of the Case

The case involved an appeal filed by the State (NCT of Delhi) against the respondent, Sweety. The offence occurred on August 31, 2013, which was after the enforcement of the Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, 2013. The respondent was found guilty of playing an active and deliberate role in luring the victim, facilitating the commission of rape, remaining present during the act, and subsequently threatening the victim. The victim fought for justice for over a decade and suffered significant emotional, mental, and physical trauma.

Contention of the Parties

The counsel for the respondent/convict prayed for a lenient view regarding the sentence. It was submitted that the respondent had faced a long trial, had been in custody for about nine months, and had a five-year-old child with no one else at home to provide care.

On the other hand, the Additional Public Prosecutor (APP) argued that the offences were grave and heinous, particularly the charge under Section 109 IPC read with Section 376 IPC. The State highlighted that the respondent was a habitual offender involved in multiple other criminal cases, including a murder case under Section 302 IPC, and was currently in judicial custody. The APP contended that where a statute prescribes a minimum sentence, the court cannot impose a lesser punishment.

Observations of the Court

The High Court observed that the nature and gravity of the offences required a proportionate and stringent punishment. It noted that the respondent showed a continuing pattern of criminal behaviour rather than an isolated incident.

The Court reiterated the legal principle that when a minimum sentence is prescribed by law, courts cannot reduce it based on mitigating factors like age, long trial, or sympathy. It was held that punishment must serve as a deterrence and send a social message that moral violations cannot simply be "purchased by money" through compensation.

"In light of the principles laid down in Parameshwari (supra), the Court is required to consider not only the individual circumstances of the convict but also the impact on society and the need to maintain public trust in law and administration. A lenient approach in the case on hand, where the convict continues to be involved in serious criminal activities, would be wholly misplaced and contrary to settled sentencing principles", it said.

Consequently, the Court sentenced the respondent to 10 years of rigorous imprisonment for the offence under Section 109 read with Section 376 IPC, along with various sentences for other charges to run concurrently.

Additionally, the Court recommended that the Delhi State Legal Services Authority award appropriate compensation to the victim, as the initial fine amount was deemed inadequate.

The Court ordered, "The victim has suffered significant emotional, mental and physical trauma while fighting for justice for more than a decade. The respondent/convict also betrayed the trust placed in her by PW3. In view of the harm caused, this Court deems it appropriate to award compensation to the victim to provide some support for the suffering endured. Out of the fine amount, if realised, a sum of ₹50,000/- shall be paid to the victim as compensation under Section 357(1) Cr.P.C. Since I find the said amount to be quite inadequate, under Section 357A(3) Cr.P.C., I recommend to the Delhi State Legal Services Authority to award appropriate compensation to PW3, the victim after making enquiry as contemplated under Section 357A(5) Cr.P.C."

Cause Title: State of NCT of Delhi v. Sweety [Neutral Citation: 2026:DHC:2434]

Appearances:

State: APP Utkarsh

Respondent: Advocate Deepak Jakhar

Click here to read/download the Order