Active Role in Rape: Delhi High Court Sentences Woman To 10 Years In Jail Citing Repeated Offence, Refuses Leniency

The Delhi High Court has sentenced a woman to 10 years of rigorous imprisonment for actively aiding the commission of rape, making it clear that repeated criminal behaviour cannot be overlooked while determining punishment. The ruling underscores that participation in such grave offences attracts strict legal consequences, irrespective of gender or personal circumstances.

The order was passed by Justice Chandrasekharan Sudha while deciding the sentence in a State appeal against an earlier acquittal. Upon examining the evidence, the Court concluded that the woman played an “active and deliberate role” in the crime. It found that she had lured the victim, remained present during the commission of rape, and subsequently issued threats, thereby establishing her direct involvement rather than any passive or incidental role.

“The respondent/convict played an active and deliberate role in luring PW3, facilitated the commission of rape, remained present during the act, and subsequently also threatened her. 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. In light of the principles laid down in Parameshwari (supra), the Court is required to consider not only the individual circumstances of the convict but also the impact on society and the need to maintain public trust in law and administration. A lenient approach in the case on hand, where the convict continues to be involved in serious criminal activities, would be wholly misplaced and contrary to settled sentencing principles”, the Court stated clearly.

During the sentencing proceedings, the convict sought leniency on several grounds. Her counsel argued that she had undergone a prolonged trial, had already spent approximately nine months in custody, and had a five-year-old child with no caretaker. However, the Court refused to reduce the sentence, choosing instead to focus on her conduct both during and after the offence.

“Even after the commission of the present offence, the conduct of the respondent or 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 or convict has not stopped engaging in criminal activities”, the Court made strong observation.

Records placed before the Court revealed that the convict was implicated in multiple serious cases, including offences relating to rape and even murder. This pattern of repeated involvement in grave crimes weighed heavily against her plea that the incident was an isolated lapse.

The High Court also reiterated a crucial legal principle that where a statute prescribes a minimum punishment, courts cannot go below that threshold, regardless of mitigating personal circumstances. It emphasised that factors such as family responsibilities, including childcare, or the length of trial cannot dilute the seriousness of the offence where the law mandates a minimum sentence.

Accordingly, the Court awarded 10 years of rigorous imprisonment under Section 109 read with Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code, along with a fine of ₹70,000. While additional sentences were imposed under other provisions, the Court directed that all sentences would run concurrently.

Recognizing the ordeal faced by the victim, who pursued justice for over a decade, the Court also took note of the severe trauma endured. Out of the total fine imposed, ₹50,000 has been directed to be paid to the victim as compensation.

The judgment sends a clear message that accountability in criminal law is based on conduct and participation, not gender. By refusing to be swayed by arguments seeking sympathy, the Court reinforced that punishment must align with the gravity of the offence and the broader interests of justice.

Case Title: State (NCT of Delhi) v. Sweety

Bench: Justice Chandrasekharan Sudha

Date of Judgement: 25.03.2026