Delhi High Court
State ( Nct Of Delhi) vs Sweety on 25 March, 2026
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Order on sentence reserved on: 19.03.2026
Order on sentence pronounced on: 25.03.2026
+ CRL.A. 1078/2018
STATE (NCT OF DELHI) .....Appellant
Through: Mr. Utkarsh, APP for State
Versus
SWEETY .....Respondent
Through: Mr. Deepak Jakhar, Advocate
alongwith respondent in person.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE CHANDRASEKHARAN SUDHA
ORDER ON SENTENCE
CHANDRASEKHARAN SUDHA, J.
1. Heard the respondent/convict on the question of sentence
under Section 235(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
(Cr.P.C.).
2. Initially the learned counsel for the respondent/convict
started arguing on the merits of this appeal including the principles
governing the scope of interference by the High Court in an appeal
filed by the State challenging the acquittal recorded by the trial
court. Reference was also made to the dictum in Babu
CRL.A. 1078/2018 Page 1 of 10
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:KOMAL
DHAWAN
Signing Date:25.03.2026
16:58:19
Sahebagouda Rudragoudar & Ors. v. State of Karnataka, 2024
INSC 320 in support of the same. This Court reminded the
learned counsel several times that the said aspects had already
been considered and requested him to confine his arguments to the
question of sentence. It was only after repeated reminders, the
learned counsel made the following submissions regarding the
sentence to be imposed.
3. It was submitted by the learned counsel for the
respondent/convict that the latter had faced trial for quite a long
period and was in custody for about nine months in the case. He
further submitted that the respondent/convict has a child aged
about 05 years and that there is no one at home to look after the
child as her brother (the CCL in this case) is also presently in jail.
Therefore, it was prayed that a lenient view be taken while
awarding the sentence.
4. Per Contra, it was submitted by the learned Additional
Public Prosecutor that the offences under which the convict has
CRL.A. 1078/2018 Page 2 of 10
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:KOMAL
DHAWAN
Signing Date:25.03.2026
16:58:19
been found guilty are grave and heinous in nature, particularly the
offence under Section 109 IPC read with 376 IPC. The offence
was committed on 31.08.2013. The provisions of Section 376 IPC
were amended by the Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, 2013,
which came into force on 03.02.2013. Since the present offence
was committed after the enforcement of the said amendment, the
amended provisions of Section 376 IPC apply to the case on hand.
It was also brought to the notice of this Court that the
respondent/convict is also involved in other criminal cases.
Notably, in FIR No. 279/2013, registered at Najafgarh police
station, she is alleged to have committed offences punishable
under Sections 376, 323, 506 and 120-B IPC. Further, in FIR No.
217/2025, registered under Sections 313(3), 318, 351 and 3(5) of
the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS) at Najafgarh police
station, the convict is presently shown as a “wanted” accused.
Additionally, in FIR No. 57/2026, registered under Sections
103(1), 61 and 3(5) BNS at Jhajjar police station, the convict is
CRL.A. 1078/2018 Page 3 of 10
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:KOMAL
DHAWAN
Signing Date:25.03.2026
16:58:19
stated to be in judicial custody. These factors constitute
aggravating circumstances and warrant the imposition of stringent
punishment.
4.1. While placing reliance on the dictums in State of M.P.
v. Vikram Das, (2019) 4 SCC 125, Central Bureau of
Investigation vs. Md. Yaseen Wani & Ors. 2025:DHC:1293 and
Parameshwari v. State of T.N., 2026 SCC OnLine SC 209, it
was also submitted that where a statute prescribes a minimum
sentence, courts cannot impose a lesser sentence under any
circumstance.
5. This Court has considered the submissions made on behalf
of both sides and has carefully examined the nature and gravity of
the offences, the manner in which they were committed, and the
overall facts and circumstances of the case.
6. The offence in the present case was committed on
31.08.2013. Under Section 376 IPC as it stood then, the
CRL.A. 1078/2018 Page 4 of 10
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:KOMAL
DHAWAN
Signing Date:25.03.2026
16:58:19
punishment prescribed is rigorous imprisonment for a term not less
than 7 years, which may extend to life and shall also be liable to
fine. Under Section 366 IPC, the offence is punishable with
imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to
ten years along with fine; under Section 506 (Part II) IPC, the
offence is punishable with imprisonment which may extend to
seven years, or with fine, or with both and under Section 323 IPC,
the offence is punishable with imprisonment which may extend to
one year, or with fine which may extend to ₹1000, or with both.
7. In Vikram Das (supra), the trial court convicted the
respondent for offence under Section 3(1)(xi) of the SC and ST
Act and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six
months with fine of ₹500. The High Court reduced the sentence of
the respondent to the sentence already undergone of eleven days,
but enhancing the fine from ₹500 to ₹3000. The Apex Court,
reversing the judgment of High Court, held that where a minimum
sentence is provided for, the court cannot impose less than the
CRL.A. 1078/2018 Page 5 of 10
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:KOMAL
DHAWAN
Signing Date:25.03.2026
16:58:19
minimum sentence. Even the provisions under Article 142 of the
Constitution cannot be resorted to impose a sentence less than the
minimum sentence. The principle that minimum sentencing
provisions must be strictly followed and even mitigating factors
such as long trial, age, or guilty plea cannot override the statutory
mandate, was reiterated in Yaseen Wani (supra).
8. In Parameshwari (supra), the respondents were tried and
convicted by the trial court for offences under Sections 307, 326
and 324 IPC and were sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for
three years along with fine. The conviction and sentence were
affirmed by the appellate court. However, in revision, the High
Court upheld the conviction, but reduced the sentence to the period
already undergone (about two months) and enhanced the fine to
₹1,00,000/-. Aggrieved, the appellant approached the Supreme
Court. The Apex Court set aside the High Court’s order and
restored the sentence awarded by the Trial Court, holding that the
High Court had shown undue sympathy and reduced the sentence
CRL.A. 1078/2018 Page 6 of 10
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:KOMAL
DHAWAN
Signing Date:25.03.2026
16:58:19
without cogent reasons. It was held that sentencing must be
proportionate to the gravity of the offence, and that mere lapse of
time, subsequent events, or offer of compensation cannot justify
reduction of the substantive sentence in serious offences.
Compensation payable to the victim is only restitutory in nature,
and it cannot be considered as equivalent to or a substitute for
punishment. Punishment is punitive in nature, and its object is to
create an adequate deterrence against the said crime and to send a
social message to the miscreants that any violation of the moral
turpitude of society would come with consequences, which cannot
merely be “purchased by money”.
9. 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
CRL.A. 1078/2018 Page 7 of 10
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:KOMAL
DHAWAN
Signing Date:25.03.2026
16:58:19
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.
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.
10. Keeping in view the aforesaid discussion, the
respondent/convict shall undergo the following sentence:
Under Section Rigorous Fine of In default of
109 IPC read Imprisonment ₹50,000/- payment of fine,
with Section for a period of the accused shallCRL.A. 1078/2018 Page 8 of 10
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:KOMAL
DHAWAN
Signing Date:25.03.2026
16:58:19
376 IPC 10 years. undergo further
Simple
Imprisonment for
6 months.
Under Section Rigorous Fine of In default, Simple
366 IPC Imprisonment ₹20,000/- Imprisonment for
for a period of 5 3 months
(five) years
Under Section Rigorous
506 Part II Imprisonment
IPC for a period of 1
(one) year
Under Section Simple
323 IPC Imprisonment
for a period of 3
(three) months
11. All the sentences shall run concurrently. The period
already undergone by the respondent/convict during
investigation/trial shall be set off under Section 428 Cr.P.C.
CRL.A. 1078/2018 Page 9 of 10
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:KOMAL
DHAWAN
Signing Date:25.03.2026
16:58:19
12. 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.
CHANDRASEKHARAN SUDHA
(JUDGE)
MARCH 25, 2026
p’ma
CRL.A. 1078/2018 Page 10 of 10
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:KOMAL
DHAWAN
Signing Date:25.03.2026
16:58:19
