The Delhi High Court, in State (NCT of Delhi) v. Sweety (CRL.A. 1078/2018, decided on 25 March 2026), emphasised the seriousness of abetment in rape offences and the need for proportionate sentencing. The Court underscored that individuals who facilitate or aid the commission of rape are equally culpable and must face stringent punishment.
This order is significant not only for its interpretation of Section 109 read with Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (now reflected in Sections 49 and 64 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023), but also for its firm emphasis on victim suffering, deterrence, and principled sentencing. The Court declined to extend leniency and imposed a sentence of ten years’ rigorous imprisonment, underscoring that punishment must be commensurate with the gravity of the offence and its impact on society.
Facts of the Case
The case arose from an appeal filed by the State challenging the acquittal recorded by the trial court. The respondent, Sweety, was accused of playing an active role in facilitating the rape of the victim (PW3).
The incident occurred on 31 August 2013, after the amendments introduced by the Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, 2013, which strengthened punishments for sexual offences.
Key factual elements include:
- The convict lured the victim and facilitated her interaction with the perpetrator.
- She remained present during the commission of the offence, thereby actively aiding the crime.
- After the incident, she threatened the victim, contributing to the victim’s continued psychological trauma.
- The victim endured prolonged suffering and struggled for justice for over a decade.
The prosecution highlighted that the role of the convict was not passive but active, deliberate, and essential to the commission of the offence.
Additionally, aggravating circumstances were brought to the record:
- The convict had been involved in multiple criminal cases, including serious offences.
- She was even described as a “wanted” accused in another case and in judicial custody in a separate matter.
The defence, on the other hand, sought leniency on humanitarian grounds:
- The convict had undergone a trial for a long period.
- She had a young child (aged about 5 years).
- There was no one to take care of the child as her brother was also in jail.
Order on Sentence
The Delhi High Court imposed the following sentences:
- 10 years rigorous imprisonment under Section 109 IPC read with Section 376 IPC. (Section 49 read with Section 64 of BNS)
- 5 years rigorous imprisonment under Section 366 IPC (Section 87 BNS).
- 1 year rigorous imprisonment under Section 506 Part II IPC (Section 351 BNS).
- 3 months simple imprisonment under Section 323 IPC [Section 115 (2) BNS].
- All sentences to run concurrently.
The Court also imposed fines and directed:
- ₹50,000 to be paid as compensation to the victim.
- Additional compensation to be considered under Section 357A CrPC (Now Section 396, BNSS) through the Delhi State Legal Services Authority.
Important Aspects of Order
1. Abetment of Rape is Equally Grave
The Court made it clear that abetment is not a secondary offence in cases of rape. A person who facilitates the crime shares moral and legal responsibility.
The Court observed that the convict:
- Lured the victim,
- Facilitated the act,
- Remained present,
- Threatened the victim thereafter.
This demonstrated a deep level of involvement, justifying strict punishment.
2. Minimum Sentencing Cannot Be Reduced
The Court relied on precedents such as:
- State of M.P. v. Vikram Das (2019)
- CBI v. Md. Yaseen Wani (2025)
- Parameshwari v. State of Tamil Nadu (2026)
It reiterated a settled principle:
Where a statute prescribes a minimum sentence, courts cannot impose a lesser sentence under any circumstances.
Even factors like:
- Long trial,
- Age,
- Family responsibilities,
cannot override statutory mandates.
3. Sentencing Must Reflect Gravity and Deterrence
The Court emphasised that punishment is not merely punitive but also:
- Deterrent,
- Symbolic of societal condemnation,
- Necessary to maintain public confidence in the justice system.
It held that reducing sentences in serious offences would:
- Undermine justice,
- Send a wrong message,
- Encourage criminal behaviour.
4. Victim-Centric Approach
The Court strongly recognised the suffering of the victim:
“The victim has suffered significant emotional, mental and physical trauma while fighting for justice for more than a decade.”
This acknowledgement highlights:
- The psychological burden of prolonged trials,
- The importance of restorative justice through compensation.
5. Compensation is Not a Substitute for Punishment
The Court clarified an important legal principle:
- Compensation is restitutive,
- Punishment is retributive and deterrent.
Money cannot replace justice:
Crime cannot be “purchased by money,” and compensation cannot substitute imprisonment.
6. Subsequent Criminal Conduct as Aggravating Factor
The Court gave significant weight to the convict’s conduct after the offence:
- Involvement in multiple serious criminal cases,
- Continued criminal behaviour.
This demonstrated:
- Lack of reformation,
- Higher risk to society.
Thus, leniency was held to be inappropriate.
Conclusion
The Delhi High Court’s order in State (NCT of Delhi) v. Sweety stands as a firm reaffirmation of the principle that criminal liability in cases of sexual offences extends beyond the principal perpetrator to those who actively facilitate or enable the crime. By imposing a sentence of ten years’ rigorous imprisonment for abetment of rape, the Court has reinforced the idea that such participation is neither peripheral nor secondary, but constitutes a grave offence warranting strict punishment.
Importantly, the order reflects a strong victim-centric approach, acknowledging the prolonged emotional, mental, and physical trauma suffered by the victim while pursuing justice for over a decade. The Court’s insistence that compensation cannot substitute punishment underscores a crucial distinction between restorative and retributive justice, emphasising that monetary relief alone cannot address the gravity of such crimes.
Important Link
Law Library: Notes and Study Material for LLB, LLM, Judiciary, and Entrance Exams