Can a woman involved in serious crimes like rape and still get sympathy due to personal reasons? Delhi High Court answers firmly—what led to strict 10-year punishment despite child and long trial?
NEW DELHI: The Delhi High Court sentenced a woman to 10 years of rigorous imprisonment for helping in the commission of rape, making it clear that repeated criminal behaviour cannot be ignored while deciding punishment. The case highlights how active participation in such crimes attracts strict consequences under law.
The order was passed by Justice Chandrasekharan Sudha while deciding the sentence in a State appeal against the earlier acquittal. The Court found that the woman had an “active and deliberate role” in the crime. She lured the victim, stayed present during the rape, and later threatened her, showing clear involvement rather than any passive role.
During the sentencing hearing, the convict requested leniency. Her lawyer argued that she had faced a long trial, had already spent about nine months in custody, and had a five-year-old child with no caretaker. However, the Court refused to reduce the punishment and focused instead on her continued criminal conduct.
The Court clearly observed:
“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.”
Records placed before the Court showed that the convict was involved in multiple serious cases, including offences under rape provisions and even murder charges, indicating a pattern rather than a one-time act.
The High Court also reiterated an important legal principle that where the law prescribes a minimum punishment, courts cannot go below that limit, even if there are personal hardships like long trial or family responsibilities. The judgment emphasised that punishment must match the seriousness of the offence and cannot be diluted on emotional grounds.
Accordingly, the Court awarded 10 years of rigorous imprisonment under Section 109 read with Section 376 IPC, along with a fine of ₹70,000. Additional sentences under other sections were also imposed, but all sentences will run together.
The Court acknowledged the long struggle of the victim, who fought the case for over a decade, and noted the serious trauma suffered. Out of the fine amount, ₹50,000 was directed to be paid as compensation to the victim.
Explanatory Table Of Laws & Sections Used In This Case
| Section / Law | Legal Provision | What It Means in Simple Terms | Role in This Case |
| Section 376 IPC | Punishment for rape | Defines and punishes rape with minimum 7 years imprisonment | Main offence committed |
| Section 109 IPC | Abetment | Punishment for helping or facilitating a crime | Woman convicted for aiding rape |
| Section 366 IPC | Kidnapping/abduction of woman | Taking a woman forcibly for marriage or illicit acts | Used due to luring victim |
| Section 506 (Part II) IPC | Criminal intimidation | Threatening someone with serious harm | Convict threatened victim |
| Section 323 IPC | Voluntarily causing hurt | Physical harm without grave injury | Minor physical offence linked |
| Section 302 IPC | Murder | Punishment for murder | Mentioned as later involvement showing pattern |
| Section 120-B IPC | Criminal conspiracy | Agreement to commit a crime | Seen in other FIR involvement |
| Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) Sections | New criminal law provisions | Updated IPC framework | Shows continued criminal cases |
| Section 357 CrPC | Compensation to victim | Court can order compensation from fine | ₹50,000 directed to victim |
| Section 357A CrPC | Victim compensation scheme | Additional compensation via state authority | Court recommended further compensation |
| Section 428 CrPC | Set-off | Time already spent in custody adjusted | Benefit given to convict |
Case Details
- Case Title: State (NCT of Delhi) vs Sweety
- Case Number: CRL.A. 1078/2018
- Court: High Court of Delhi at New Delhi
- Bench: Hon’ble Ms. Justice Chandrasekharan Sudha
- Order Reserved On: 19.03.2026
- Order Pronounced On: 25.03.2026
Counsels
- For State (Appellant): Mr. Utkarsh, APP
- For Respondent/Convict: Mr. Deepak Jakhar, Advocate (with respondent in person)
Key Takeaways
- Courts finally looked beyond gender and focused on conduct—active involvement in crime led to strict punishment.
- The usual sympathy arguments—child, long trial—were rejected, showing law must not be emotionally manipulated.
- Repeated criminal behaviour destroyed the “isolated mistake” narrative often used to dilute accountability.
- This case proves that women are not always victims—sometimes they are equal or active perpetrators.
- The system still shows a tendency to consider leniency for women, but strong evidence forced the court to hold ground here.
This Could Change Your Case-Get FREE Legal Advice-Click Here!
Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the Indian courts and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of “ShoneeKapoor.com” or its affiliates. This article is intended for informational and educational purposes only. The content provided is not legal advice, and viewers should not act upon this information without seeking professional counsel. Viewer discretion is advised.