Supreme Court trashes appeals of two convicts in rape case of minor school girl
The Supreme Court has dismissed the appeal of two convicts challenging the life imprisonment handed down by courts below for kidnapping and raping a 13-year-old girl in 2019 on the pretext of taking her to a picnic.
A Bench comprising Justices Prashant Kumar Mishra and Manmohan on Tuesday (June 10, 2025) rejected the appeal of convicts Sanjay Paikra and Pustam Yadav against the Chhattisgarh High Court verdict.
The High Court on August 5, 2024, upheld the trial court's judgement convicting Paikra, Yadav and third accused Santosh Kumar Gupta, the school van driver, in the sensational kidnapping and rape case under various provisions of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act (POCSO Act) for offences of kidnapping and raping a class VII student.
'This is a very serious case. You, along with the van driver kidnapped and raped a minor schoolgirl. No indulgence is needed from us. Dismissed,' the Bench said while rejecting the appeal of two convicts.
The Bench did not agree to the submissions that the girl was a consenting party and did not raise any alarm during the period when she was kept in solitary confinement.
'She is a minor. This is proved and nothing else is needed,' the Bench said.
The trial court had convicted the three accused on October 5, 2021 and had awarded life imprisonment besides imposing a fine of ₹1,000 on them under Section 6 of the POCSO Act, which deals with the punishment for aggravated penetrative sexual assault.
They were also handed down varying jail terms for other offences, including kidnapping. A First Information Report (FIR) was lodged by the survivor and her mother with the police on November 18, 2019.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Time of India
2 hours ago
- Time of India
Can consecutive life terms be given to person convicted of murder twice? SC to examine
The Supreme Court on Thursday agreed to examine whether consecutive life sentences can be handed out to a person convicted twice for the offence of murder. The issue cropped up when the bench was hearing a plea arising out of a 2015 verdict of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in a 2010 double murder case . A bench of Justices Prashant Kumar Mishra and Manmohan learnt that a five-judge Constitution bench of the apex court in July 2016 held that while multiple sentences for imprisonment for life can be awarded for multiple murders or other offences punishable with life term, they cannot be directed to run consecutively. "Issue notice limited to the question of ascertaining as to whether the imposition of consecutive life sentence for being convicted for the offence punishable under section 302 (twice) is lawful in view of the observations made in ... (constitution bench verdict), returnable in eight weeks," the bench said. The high court, while upholding the conviction of a man in the case, had turned down the reference for confirmation of death sentence awarded to him by a trial court. Live Events The high court awarded life imprisonment to the convict twice for the offence of murder under Section 302 of the erstwhile IPC. Life term, it said, was a sentence for imprisonment till the last breath of a person's natural life and as such, imposition of "two life sentences is otherwise superfluous". "...however, since by executive action, in the form of remissions and pardons, such life imprisonment is often reduced to imprisonment for a lessor period, therefore, in such a situation, sentence of a second life imprisonment can be directed to run from the date when a person completes one sentence of such imprisonment, if remissions are granted to him," the high court added. It directed that if any remission was granted to the convict in any one of his life sentences, the life term imposed upon him for the other offence of murder would start running from the date the first period of imprisonment was completed. During the hearing in the apex court on Thursday, the counsel for the petitioner referred to the July 2016 verdict of the Constitution bench. The lawyer referred to the apex court holding that when it comes to life imprisonment, it couldn't be imposed consecutively. "That is exactly what has been done in this case," she argued. The lawyer referred to the Constitution bench verdict which said, "We hold that while multiple sentences for imprisonment for life can be awarded for multiple murders or other offences punishable with imprisonment for life, the life sentences so awarded cannot be directed to run consecutively." She said the high court's direction was now contrary to the law laid down by the apex court. The lawyer said the convict was not able to apply for remission due to the high court's direction and urged the top court to at least consider setting aside that part of the verdict.
Hindustan Times
3 hours ago
- Hindustan Times
Can consecutive life terms be given to person convicted of murder twice? SC to examine
New Delhi, The Supreme Court on Thursday agreed to examine whether consecutive life sentences can be handed out to a person convicted twice for the offence of murder. The issue cropped up when the bench was hearing a plea arising out of a 2015 verdict of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in a 2010 double murder case. A bench of Justices Prashant Kumar Mishra and Manmohan learnt that a five-judge Constitution bench of the apex court in July 2016 held that while multiple sentences for imprisonment for life can be awarded for multiple murders or other offences punishable with life term, they cannot be directed to run consecutively. "Issue notice limited to the question of ascertaining as to whether the imposition of consecutive life sentence for being convicted for the offence punishable under section 302 is lawful in view of the observations made in ... , returnable in eight weeks," the bench said. The high court, while upholding the conviction of a man in the case, had turned down the reference for confirmation of death sentence awarded to him by a trial court. The high court awarded life imprisonment to the convict twice for the offence of murder under Section 302 of the erstwhile IPC. Life term, it said, was a sentence for imprisonment till the last breath of a person's natural life and as such, imposition of "two life sentences is otherwise superfluous". "...however, since by executive action, in the form of remissions and pardons, such life imprisonment is often reduced to imprisonment for a lessor period, therefore, in such a situation, sentence of a second life imprisonment can be directed to run from the date when a person completes one sentence of such imprisonment, if remissions are granted to him," the high court added. It directed that if any remission was granted to the convict in any one of his life sentences, the life term imposed upon him for the other offence of murder would start running from the date the first period of imprisonment was completed. During the hearing in the apex court on Thursday, the counsel for the petitioner referred to the July 2016 verdict of the Constitution bench. The lawyer referred to the apex court holding that when it comes to life imprisonment, it couldn't be imposed consecutively. "That is exactly what has been done in this case," she argued. The lawyer referred to the Constitution bench verdict which said, "We hold that while multiple sentences for imprisonment for life can be awarded for multiple murders or other offences punishable with imprisonment for life, the life sentences so awarded cannot be directed to run consecutively." She said the high court's direction was now contrary to the law laid down by the apex court. The lawyer said the convict was not able to apply for remission due to the high court's direction and urged the top court to at least consider setting aside that part of the verdict.
News18
3 hours ago
- News18
SC junks plea of conman Sukeshs wife for expeditious bail hearing
Last Updated: New Delhi, Jun 12 (PTI) The Supreme Court has rejected the plea of Leena Paulose, wife of alleged conman Sukesh Chandrashekar, in a Rs 200 crore extortion case for an expeditious hearing of her bail plea in Delhi High Court. A bench comprising Justices Prashant Kumar Mishra and Manmohan observed her bail application was pending before the Delhi High Court and said, 'Considering that the bail petition is partly heard before the high court and is now posted for further arguments on July 2, 2025, we are not inclined to entertain this special leave petition. The special leave petition is, accordingly, dismissed." The top court on Wednesday added, 'It is expected that the High Court shall dispose the bail petition pending before it at the earliest and in accordance with law." Paulose moved the top court against a May 19 order of the high court, which posted her plea in July. Delhi Police has booked Chandrashekar for allegedly duping the wives of former promoters of Ranbaxy Shivinder Singh and Malvinder Singh of Rs 200 crore. Several separate investigations against him in the country are currently underway. Chandrasekhar and Paulose, who are also facing proceedings in a money laundering case of the Enforcement Directorate, were arrested by Delhi Police in the extortion case. The police have also invoked the Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act (MCOCA) in the case. First Published: June 12, 2025, 17:00 IST
