Ehsaan vs State Of National Captial Territory Of Delhi

Court
Supreme Court

REPORTABLE
2026 INSC 720

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. OF 2026
(Arising out of SLP(Crl.) No.3407 of 2026)


EHSAAN …APPELLANT(S)

VERSUS

STATE OF NATIONAL CAPITAL
TERRITORY OF DELHI …RESPONDENT(S)



J U D G M E N T

SANJAY KAROL, J.

“By deft modulation of sentencing process be stern where it should be, and
tempered with mercy where it warrants to be.”
1
K. Ramaswamy J.

1. Leave Granted.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
RAJNI MUKHI
Date: 2026.07.20
14:57:15 IST
Reason:


1
Sevaka Perumal v. State of T.N., (1991) 3 SCC 471
Crl.App.No…./2026 @ SLP(Crl)No.3407 of 2026 Page 1 of 11

st
2 . Ehsaan, the appellant-convict is aggrieved by judgment and order dated 1
2
November 2017 by the High Court of Delhi which affirmed the finding of
th th
conviction and sentence returned in terms of orders dated 7 June 2017 and 9
3
June 2017 by the Additional Sessions Judge , Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi under
4
Section 376-D Indian Penal Code, 1860 . The sentence awarded was rigorous
imprisonment for life that is till the remainder to natural life and payment of a
fine of Rs.25,000 to the victim, PW-2, in default whereof simple imprisonment
for two years. The context in which the aforesaid sentence came to be eventually
imposed was that a call was received at the Police Station, I.P. Estate, New Delhi,
that by the first informant ‘ benami ’ that two accused persons had committed rape
on the victim PW-2. She had, at night-time took a rickshaw from the Delhi
Railway Station on the assurance that the driver would drop her off at her home
but instead of doing so, he took her to a deserted place where another person was
already present and they proceeded to commit the offence of rape, leading to the
th
registration of FIR No.0411 dated 7 September 2016.

th
3. At the outset, it may be noted that while issuing notice on 5 January 2026,
this Court refused to interfere with the conviction and issued notice only confined
to the quantum of sentence.

4. The Trial Court in imposing the sentence of remainder of natural life
considered the judgments of this Court in inter alia State of Punjab v. Saurabh
5 6 7
Bakshi ; Gopal Singh v. State of Uttarakhand ; State of Punjab v. Bawa Singh .
The reasoning to come to the finding of guilt was based on the evidence of the

2
Criminal Appeal No.814 of 2017
3
Trial Court
4
IPC
5
(2015) 5 SCC 182
6
(2013) 7 SCC 545
7
(2015) 3 SCC 441
Crl.App.No…./2026 @ SLP(Crl)No.3407 of 2026 Page 2 of 11

victim, PW-2 and witness PW8 discussed in para 9 to 16 and 25 to 28 of the Trial
Court judgment. The paragraphs dealing with the sentence are as follows:
“…After going through the aforesaid conceptus of judgment of
Hon’ble Supreme Court, it is clear that both the convicts committed a
heinous crime of gang rape on a hapless lady who had forgot her way
to her destination. Instead of helping her accused Ehsaan induced her
to accompany him to the place of incident on the pretext of dropping
her at her destination where his associate co-accused Umesh Giri
joined him & they both in furtherance of their common intention
committed gang rape on her.
Hence, considering the manner of commission of offence, brutality
inflicted by accused persons in injury and act of both the convicts and
submissions of the parties, I am of the opinion that ends of justice
would only meet if the convicts namely Umesh Giri and Ehsaan are
sentenced as under:
For offence punishable under section 376-D IPCC, the above named
convicts are sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for life
which shall mean imprisonment for the remainder of convicts natural
life, in addition to payment of fine of Rs. 25,000/- each, to be paid to
the victim and default whereof, they shall also undergo two years
S.I…”

The High Court has independently considered the evidence of record and
recorded its agreement, in toto with the Trial Court.

5. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned ASG for the
respondent and perused the written submissions.

6. The offence committed upon the victim is, without any manner of doubt,
grave. We are only to examine whether the sentence concurrently imposed upon
him, satisfies the doctrine of proportionality or not, in the attending facts and
circumstances of this case. As such, a brief foray into the doctrine and its
application would be justified.

Crl.App.No…./2026 @ SLP(Crl)No.3407 of 2026 Page 3 of 11

6.1 P.N. Bhagwati J . as he then was in his dissenting opinion on the
aspect of constitutionality of the death penalty provided under Section 302
8
IPC Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab , held as under:

“36. Now it is an essential element of the rule of law that the
sentence imposed must be proportionate to the offence. If a law
provides for imposition of a sentence which is disproportionate to
the offence, it would be arbitrary and irrational, for it would not
pass the test of reason and would be contrary to the rule of law
and void under Articles 14, 19 and 21. The principle of
proportionality is implicit in these three Articles of the
Constitution. If, for example, death penalty was prescribed for the
simple offence of theft — as indeed it was at one time in the
seventeenth century England — it would be clearly excessive and
wholly disproportionate to the offence and hence arbitrary and
irrational by any standards of human decency and it would be
impossible to sustain it against the challenge of these three
Articles of the Constitution. It must therefore be taken to be clear
beyond doubt that the proportionality principle constitutes an
important constitutional criterion for adjudging the validity of a
sentence imposed by law.


6.2 Surya Kant J. (as he then was) in Surinder Singh v. State (UT of
9
Chandigarh ) discussed the doctrine of proportionality in the following
terms:
“…
34. The equality of ratio between two sets of variables is now well
known as the doctrine of proportionality. The bedrock of
sentencing policy in our criminal justice system is also based on
the axiom of proportionality. This principle of commensurate
sentencing treats offenders as agents capable of evaluating their
own illegal conduct and the social censure associated with it,
which is communicated to them by imposing a proportionate
sentence. [ Andrew Ashworth, Sentencing and Criminal
Justice (5th Edn., Cambridge University Press 2010)] The
exercise for assessing “proportionality” is thus dependent upon
the gravity of the offence which is determined according to — ( a )
mischief caused or risk involved in the offence; ( b ) the overall
conduct of the offender and; ( c ) motives ascribed to the felon.
Further, the equality of treatment so as to eliminate discriminatory
practices in the award of sentencing, is integral to the canons of
proportionality. Needless to say, the guarantee of even-
handedness before the law(s), as enshrined in Article 14 of our

8
(1982) 3 SCC 24

9
(2021) 20 SCC 24
Crl.App.No…./2026 @ SLP(Crl)No.3407 of 2026 Page 4 of 11

Constitution, encompasses the administration of criminal justice
system as well.
35. Having said that, we cannot be incognizant of the fact that
there are practical difficulties in achieving absolute consistency
in regards to sentencing. It must be candidly acknowledged that
there is an element of discretion present while adjudicating the
issue of sentence, however, the same cannot be exercised in an
unprincipled manner. This Court has explicitly ruled out the
practice of awarding disproportionate sentences, especially those
that showcase undue leniency, for it would undermine the public
confidence in efficacy of law.
36. The sentencing policy, therefore, keeps pace with changing
time. Undoubtedly, the primary emphasis while deciding the
quantum of sentence should lie on the gravity or penal value of
the offence. However, other guiding elements of rehabilitative
justice model, including, appreciation of grounds for mitigation
of sentence also deserve to be duly considered within the
permissible limits of judicial discretion. The awarding of just and
proportionate sentence remains the solemn duty of the courts and
they should not be swayed by non-relevant factors while deciding
the quantum of sentence. Naturally, what factors should be
considered as “relevant” or “non-relevant” will depend on the
facts and circumstances of each case, and no straitjacket formula
can be laid down for the same.”

10
6.3 In State of Karnataka v. Krishnappa three judge Bench of this
Court observed as follows to the effect that a retributive view in cases
involving the offence of rape is entirely justified:

“18. …The measure of punishment in a case of rape cannot
depend upon the social status of the victim or the accused. It must
depend upon the conduct of the accused, the state and age of the
sexually assaulted female and the gravity of the criminal act.
Crimes of violence upon women need to be severely dealt with.
The socio-economic status, religion, race, caste or creed of the
accused or the victim are irrelevant considerations in sentencing
policy. Protection of society and deterring the criminal is the
avowed object of law and that is required to be achieved by
imposing an appropriate sentence. The sentencing courts are
expected to consider all relevant facts and circumstances bearing
on the question of sentence and proceed to impose a sentence
commensurate with the gravity of the offence. Courts must hear
the loud cry for justice by the society in cases of the heinous crime
of rape on innocent helpless girls of tender years, as in this case,
and respond by imposition of proper sentence. Public abhorrence

10
(2000) 4 SCC 75
Crl.App.No…./2026 @ SLP(Crl)No.3407 of 2026 Page 5 of 11

of the crime needs reflection through imposition of appropriate
sentence by the court. ...”

The view above was referred to by a Bench of equal strength in Shimbhu
11
v. State of Haryana .

6.4 When a sentence is imposed on an offender, it is done so with tri-
fold purpose i.e. punitive, deterrent and protective. The overall objective
is to rid the society of criminal proclivity. The same is done by ensuring
that the sentence imposed is proportional to the offence or in other words
not overly influenced by the possibility of reformation and instead,
striking a judicious balance between the interest of the victim, society and
the accused, after following the due process of law. We have considered a
number of other judgments also inter-alia Allauddin Mian v. State of
12 13 14
Bihar ; Navas v. State of Kerala ; Sevaka Perumal v. State of T.N ;
15
and Parsuram v. State of M.P. . The following aspects reveal themselves
when viewed from the lens of imposition of sentence. It must:

(a) Be in accordance with the nature and gravity of the crime;

(b) Adequately protect the interest of the society;
(c) Take into account the deterrent purpose of punishment;
(d) Consider the motive behind the crime, if any;

(e) Give due weight to the conduct of the accused;
(f) Examine whether the crime in question was pre-meditated or
not;
(g) Keep in view the age of the accused and whether he has
engaged in any similar offence in past for which he has been duly
convicted;


11
(2014) 13 SCC 318
12
(1989) 3 SCC 5
13
(2024) 14 SCC 82
14
(1991) 3 SCC 471
15
(2019) 8 SCC 382
Crl.App.No…./2026 @ SLP(Crl)No.3407 of 2026 Page 6 of 11

(h) Account for the number of victims of the offence;
(i) Not consider the religion, race, caste or creed of the offender
as a factor;

(j) Consider the possibility of reformation of the accused. It is the
duty of the State to establish that the same does not exist; and

(k) The abuse of trust or misuse of personal relationship, if any.


The facets identified by us above are illustrative and not exhaustive. A holistic
view of the entire case must be taken in the attending facts of each case.
Considering all these factors among others, the foremost duty of the Court is to
assess the evidence in a given case; imposing just and adequate punishment upon
the accused.

7. In this part, we must consider the precedents wherein sentence has been
modified by the Court either from capital punishment to rigorous imprisonment
for life or for an otherwise fixed term.


16
7.1 In Shankar Kisanrao Khade v. State of Maharashtra , a two-
judge Bench, was considering an appeal of the convict who had
kidnapped, raped and murdered an intellectually disabled 11-year-old girl.
The High Court of Judicature of Bombay, had awarded the death sentence,
but this Court reduced the same to rigorous imprisonment for life having
considered four aspects - the enormity of the crime; satisfaction of the
criminal test; the previous criminal record of the accused even though the
same was held to be incorrectly considered by the High Court; and the
non-reporting of the offence of sexual assault.





16
(2013) 5 SCC 546
Crl.App.No…./2026 @ SLP(Crl)No.3407 of 2026 Page 7 of 11

17
7.2 In Rajkumar v. State of M.P. , this Court altered the death sentence,
on a conviction under Section 376 IPC, to 35 years of RI without
remission, upholding the conviction of an uncle for having committed
breach of trust since she was in his care and custody.


18
7.3 In Selvam v. State a three-judge Bench of this Court while
examining the correctness of conviction and sentence of the appellant
having been convicted of rape and murder, refused to interfere with the
conviction but modified the sentence to minimum thirty years without
remission.


19
7.4 In Parsuram v. State of M.P. , the sentence of death awarded to a
tutor for having committed rape and murder of a student was modified to
actual imprisonment of 30 years on account of the fact that the Courts
below did not consider (a) the possibility of reformation; (b) lack of
criminal antecedents; and (c) the age of the accused at the time of the
offence which was 22 years.


20
7.5 In Sundar v. State a three judge Bench had while upholding the
conviction of the accused on the aspect of kidnapping and murdering a
seven year old victim modified the sentence to a minimum of twenty years
RI without remission considering that at the time of the offence the
accused was 23 years old, had no prior antecedent, had maintained a good
conduct in prison and had also made efforts to mend his ways in
anticipation of release.


17
(2014) 5 SCC 353
18
(2014) 12 SCC 274
19
(2019) 8 SCC 382
20
(2024) 12 SCC 764
Crl.App.No…./2026 @ SLP(Crl)No.3407 of 2026 Page 8 of 11

21
7.6 In Ravinder Singh v. State (NCT of Delhi) the Court while
examining the conviction of a father accused of having raped his own
daughter, observed that the conviction cannot be disturbed. The aspect of
sentence, it was observed had to be enhanced should the view be that the
father will be eligible for remission after 14 years since at the time of
release the victim will be still in her 20s and so his presence in her life
will be greatly disturbing. Sentence was modified to fixed terms of 20
years.

8. In the present case, the appellant convict has no criminal antecedents; was
of only 25 years when the offence was committed; given the young age there is a
possibility of reformation. The State has neither brought on record anything to
show that the same would not be possible, nor has it contravened the statement
made on behalf of the appellant that in the nearly ten years (including remission)
that he has been convicted, he has maintained a good conduct. Be that as it may,
this Court cannot lose sight of the fact that the offence, as already observed is
heinous and is not only against the victim PW-2 but against the society at large.
Despite much evolution, sociologically and psychologically, to break away from
the chains of patriarchal thought, incidents such as these are only continuing
unabashedly. Various amendments have been brought in over the years in the law,
and while they may have had positive impact to some extent, the urgency to root
out such offences cannot be simmered down even for a bit till these incidents are
recorded only in history and are viewed with collective disdain. It would be
apposite to refer to some statistics in this regard:





21
(2024) 2 SCC 323
Crl.App.No…./2026 @ SLP(Crl)No.3407 of 2026 Page 9 of 11

NCRB DATA ON RAPE CASES REPORTED AGAINST WOMEN DURING 2021-2024


22 23 24 25
SL CRIME HEAD 2021 2022 2023 2024
1. Murder with Rape/Gang Rape 284 248 230 266

2. Rape 31677 31516 29670 29536


3. Attempt to Commit Rape 3800 3288 2796 2561


9. It also must be observed that the offence under which the appellant-convict
has been sentenced, Section 376D IPC was substituted by way of the 2013
Criminal Law Amendment being Act 13 of 2013 which was brought in the
aftermath of the horrifying Nirbhaya incident that took place on the streets of the
capital. There it has been made clear that for this offence, minimum sentence is
of twenty years, and the maximum is that has been imposed upon the appellant-
convict i.e., life imprisonment for the remainder of natural life. It appears quite
plainly that considering the nature of the offence, the Legislature first made it an
independent offence and then also provided for a minimum punishment. The
Court, therefore, has no other alternative and must, upon convicting, impose at
least the minimum sentence. The judicial discretion in reducing the same by
recording ‘ adequate and special reasons ’ which was given in proviso to the
unamended Section 376 has been taken away. This indicates legislative
recognition of the seriousness of the offence which the Courts must abide by.

10. Considering the principles discussed above and applying them to the
factors accruing in favour of the appellant - convict noted earlier, we deem it
appropriate to modify the sentence to 20 years with benefit of remission, if any.
The appeal is partly allowed.

22
https://www.ncrb.gov.in/uploads/nationalcrimerecordsbureau/custom/1696831798CII2021Volume1.pdf
23
https://www.ncrb.gov.in/uploads/nationalcrimerecordsbureau/custom/1701607577CrimeinIndia2022Book1.pdf
24
https://www.ncrb.gov.in/uploads/files/1CrimeinIndia2023PartI1.pdf
25
https://www.ncrb.gov.in/uploads/files/CrimeinIndia2024-VolumeI1.pdf
Crl.App.No…./2026 @ SLP(Crl)No.3407 of 2026 Page 10 of 11

Pending application(s) if any shall stand closed.




………………………………………J.
(SANJAY KAROL)



………………………………………J.
(AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH)

New Delhi;
July 20, 2026

Crl.App.No…./2026 @ SLP(Crl)No.3407 of 2026 Page 11 of 11