Factual Background 

In the Matter of Aman v. State In the prosecution’s case, wireless data was used to identify a gas station close to Pul Mithai, the scene of the complainant’s rape. The complainant, who had phoned the police, was there when the sub-inspector and two others showed there. The prosecutrix was taken to the hospital by the police, where she was given a medical checkup and had her statement taken. The prosecutor claimed to be from Nepal and was travelling to Jalandhar to meet her sister. In a van with four additional guys, she was driven to Rajghat, where she was sexually assaulted. She was then taken to the train station and made to get out of the vehicle. Then, against her will, two more guys dragged her into a neighbouring woodland and sexually assaulted her. When the complainant encountered the prosecutrix, he told him about the event, and he phoned the police. According to Sections 376(D), 363, and 365 of the Indian Penal Code, the accused individuals, Aman, Rahul, Mohd. Wasim, Sunny, and Bal Kishan were accused of kidnapping, abducting, and gang-raping. They contested the impugned decision made by the Delhi Addl. Sessions Tis Hazari Courts. The accused maintained their innocence and said all circumstances cited to support their accusations were untrue. They also stated that the prosecutrix had misidentified them in court and that they would not be taking part in TIP proceedings.

Analysis of Court Order 

The accused individuals failed to show any illegality in the challenged judgement convicting them for the acts they were charged with, according to the opinion of the division bench of the Delhi High Court Justice Mukta Gupta and Justice Poonam A. Bamba. Because the accused were first-time offenders and had expressed remorse, the Court concluded that life in prison should satisfy the requirements of justice after taking into account the accused’s background, social class, age, and other factors. The offence was punishable under Section 376(D) of the Penal Code, 1860. As a result, the punishment of imprisonment under Section 376(D) of the IPC for accused parties was changed from life for the remainder of convicts’ natural life to life imprisonment.

CASE NAME – Aman v. State, Crl. A. 241 of 2018