The Indian Penal Code (IPC) section that prescribes the death penalty for repeat rape offenders was rightly introduced to impose a deterrent against such crimes, the amicus curiae in the Shakti Mills gang rape case told the Bombay High Court on Monday.

However, the application of this Section 376 (E) in the present case could be questionable, the amicus told a Bench of Justices B.P. Dharamadhikari and Revati Mohite-Dere which was hearing a challenge to the constitutional validity of the provision through writ petitions filed by the three death row convicts in the case.

Section 376 (E) of the IPC was introduced by the Centre through an amendment in 2013 following the December 2012 gang rape case in New Delhi. Advocate Abad Ponda, appointed by the court as the amicus curiae in the Shakti Mills case in 2014, told the HC that the section was in consonance with all legal and constitutional principles. However, its application in the present case could be questionable, Mr. Ponda said.

Earlier, the Bench had asked the Union government what was the purpose of introducing Section 376 (E) since Sub-section A of Section 376, already prescribed the maximum punishment of death for rape.

The Union government and the amicus curiae defended the new section. They told the HC while Sub-section A dealt with a grave case in which the victim died or was reduced to a vegetative state, Section 376 (E) provided that a person previously convicted under any sub-section of Section 376 was liable to be sentenced to death for the subsequent offence of rape, if the court deemed fit.

However, while the Centre has maintained that such repeat offence can occur any time after the first offence, Mr. Ponda told the court the accused person could be termed a repeat offender only if the second offence was committed after he was convicted of rape for the first time.