'No Criminal History': Madhya Pradesh High Court Commutes Death Penalty Imposed On Man Convicted For Rape And Murder Of Minor
The Madhya Pradesh High Court in a recent ruling commuted the death sentence of a man convicted for rape and murder of a minor girl. The court altered the sentence from death penalty to life imprisonment for remainder of the life of the appellant.In doing so, the division bench comprising Justice Vivek Agarwal and Justice Devnarayan Mishra referred to Mohinder Singh Vs. State of Punjab (2013)...
The Madhya Pradesh High Court in a recent ruling commuted the death sentence of a man convicted for rape and murder of a minor girl. The court altered the sentence from death penalty to life imprisonment for remainder of the life of the appellant.
In doing so, the division bench comprising Justice Vivek Agarwal and Justice Devnarayan Mishra referred to Mohinder Singh Vs. State of Punjab (2013) and came to the conclusion that the fact that appellant had no criminal history was not taken into consideration by the Trial Court.
The division bench observed, “…we have no hesitation in maintaining his sentence under Sections 302, 376(ab), 377, 201, 363, 366 of the IPC, but societal interest can be balanced by holding that appellant shall remain in custody for the remaining period of his life rather than for 14, 20 or 30 years as offence under Section 5(m) of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, is made out for which the punishment is not less than 20 years, but which may extend to imprisonment for life, which shall mean imprisonment for the remainder of natural life of that person.”
The appellant/accused was convicted by the Trial Court under Sections 377, 201, 363, 366 of the IPC. Appellant was also convicted under Sections 302 and Section 376(ab) and had been sentenced to death penalty. Thus, with regard to the imposition of death sentence, the matter was sent to High Court in reference by the Trial Court and the accused also preferred an appeal before the High Court under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 challenging the conviction and penalty on the ground that his case is based upon circumstantial evidence, but there is no witness/evidence that the prosecutrix was last seen with the accused-appellant.
With regard to the issue whether death penalty in the present case was appropriate or not, the court referred to the judgement of Supreme Court in Mohinder Singh (supra) wherein it was held that the High Court has to first satisfy itself that conviction is right and then consider what sentence should be awarded independent of view expressed by Sessions Judge. The judgement further held that confirmation of death sentence is not to be based only on precedents or aggravating facts of any other case, but High Court has to come to an independent conclusion after considering proceedings in all aspects. Therefore, in the present case, the court firstly went on to assess whether the conviction by the Trial Court was right or not.
As per the facts of the case, the victim had gone to purchase gutka for her father after which she went missing. Thereafter, her parents lodged a missing person report. Next morning, the victim's dead body was found in a nearby drain. Later, through a medical examination, it was confirmed that the minor victim was raped. Few prosecution witness expressed doubt over the appellant-accused and the SHO carried out a search at the hut of the accused where a number of evidences were seized. Through DNA profiling and conduct of examination of exhibits, the evidences against the accused were corroborated. The accused's plea of alibi was also rejected by the court as the circumstantial evidence was contrary. Thus, the High Court maintained the conviction of the appellant-accused under Sections 302, 376(ab), 377, 201, 363, 366 of the IPC.
The court again referred to Mohinder Singh (supra) wherein it was observed, “The doctrine of “rarest of rare” confines two aspects and when both the aspects are satisfied only then the death penalty can be imposed. Firstly, the case must clearly fall within the ambit of “rarest of rare” and secondly, when the alternative option of life imprisonment is unquestionably foreclosed. In life sentence, there is a possibility of achieving deterrence, rehabilitation and retribution in different degrees. But the same does not hold true for the death penalty. It is unique in its absolute rejection of the potential of convict to rehabilitate and reform. It extinguishes life and thereby terminates the being, therefore, puts an end anything to do with the life. This is the big difference between two punishments. Thus, before imposing death penalty, it is imperative to consider the same. It is further held that for satisfying the second aspect of “rarest of rare” doctrine, the court will have to provide clear evidence as to why the convict is not fit for any kind of reformatory and rehabilitation scheme.”
Thus, the court noted that the appellant had no criminal history and as per the report of the Superintendent of the jail, his conduct was normal. Moreover, the appellant has aged parents and a wife. Thus, the court opined that there is a possibility for reform.
The court observed, “we are of the considered opinion that circumstances of the case do not call for confirmation of death penalty. It only requires maintaining of the conviction, but alteration of sentence from one of death penalty to life imprisonment for remainder of the life of the appellant.”
Thus, the criminal appeal was party allowed.
Case Title: Vishnu Bhamore Versus State of Madhya Pradesh, Criminal Appeal No. 6422 Of 2019
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (MP) 301