Statutory minimum sentences are mandatory and cannot be reduced regardless of mitigating factors or personal hardships.

The State filed an appeal against the trial court's acquittal of the respondent.

The High Court subsequently overturned the acquittal and found the respondent guilty of offences committed on August 31, 2013, involving the abetment of rape, kidnapping, criminal intimidation, and voluntarily causing hurt

During the hearing on the sentence, the respondent sought leniency, citing nine months of prior custody, a five-year-old child, and no family support

The State opposed leniency, emphasizing the heinous nature of the offences (post-2013 Criminal Law Amendment) and the respondent’s subsequent involvement in multiple criminal cases, including murder and abortion-related offences, where she is currently in judicial custody or "wanted"

1. Whether the court can impose a sentence less than the statutory minimum prescribed under the Indian Penal Code (IPC) due to mitigating circumstances such as family responsibilities or trial delay.

2. What is the appropriate quantum of sentence and compensation considering the convict's conduct and criminal antecedents?

The court applied the sentencing provisions of the IPC as amended by the Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, 2013, specifically Sections 376, 366, 506 (Part II), and 323

Procedurally, the court exercised powers under Sections 235(2), 357, 357A, and 428 of the Cr.P.C.

It relied on State of M.P. v. Vikram Das (2019) and CBI v. Md. Yaseen Wani (2025) to establish that courts cannot bypass a statutory minimum sentence even under Article 142

Furthermore, the court applied the principle from Parameshwari v. State of T.N. (2026), stating that sentencing must be proportionate to the gravity of the offence and that compensation is not a substitute for punitive deterrence

The court rejected the respondent's plea for leniency, noting that the offences were committed after the 2013 amendment to the IPC, which mandated strict minimum sentences

It reasoned that while mitigating factors like the respondent's child were present, they could not override the statutory mandate of a minimum sentence

The court highlighted "aggravating circumstances," specifically the respondent’s "continuing pattern of criminal behaviour" evidenced by her subsequent involvement in three other FIRs involving grave charges like Section 302 IPC (murder)

It observed that her active role in luring the victim and facilitating the rape demonstrated a high degree of moral turpitude

Consequently, the court held that undue sympathy would be misplaced and contrary to the need for public trust in the administration of justice

All sentences are to run concurrently, with the benefit of set-off for time served

The court further directed that ₹50,000 from the fine be paid to the victim as compensation and recommended the Delhi State Legal Services Authority (DSLSA) to award additional compensation under Section 357A Cr.P.C.