Victimology Not Just About Compensation, But Proportionate Punishment: Jharkhand High Court Confirms Death Sentence In Brutal Rape & Murder Case

The Jharkhand High Court has confirmed the capital punishment for a man convicted of the rape and murder of a 19-year-old woman in Ranchi, emphasizing that victimology extends beyond mere compensation.

The division judge bench comprising Justices Ananda Sen and Gautam Kumar Choudhary noted, “Victimology is not all about victim compensation, which cannot be a recompense for valuable life lost to crime in such circumstance. It is also to inflict punishment proportionate to the nature and gravity of offence. We will fail the victim and the society if capital punishment is not awarded in such cases.”

The incident dates back to 2016, when the 19-year-old victim, a student at RTC Institute of Technology, was brutally assaulted after returning home from her classes. The victim lived in Booti Basti, Ranchi, and was alone in her house at the time of the crime. The next morning, the informant's daughter tried to contact her but found her mobile phone switched off. Growing concerned, the informant asked a neighbor, the wife of Anil Kumar Singh, to check on the victim. Upon arrival, the neighbor discovered the door ajar and smoke billowing from inside. Inside the house, the victim was found lying in a severely burnt condition, with the bed and mattress still on fire.

The police were notified, and a First Information Report (FIR) was lodged under multiple sections of the Indian Penal Code, including 448 (house trespass), 302 (murder), 376 (rape), and 201 (causing disappearance of evidence). Following an investigation, a chargesheet was filed against the appellant, leading to a trial in which the lower court found the accused guilty and sentenced him to death.

The accused filed an appeal challenging the conviction and sentence, arguing that the case was based purely on circumstantial evidence. The defense emphasized that it is a well-established legal principle that circumstantial evidence must form an unbroken chain, pointing conclusively to the guilt of the accused without any alternative explanation. The counsel for the appellant also pointed out that the accused was a 25-year-old man with no prior criminal record, which should be considered in mitigating the sentence.

However, the State's counsel refuted these claims, presenting the accused as a known criminal with a history of offenses, including pending charges under Sections 376 (rape) and 380 (theft) of the IPC, and Section 66/66A of the Information Technology Act. It was further submitted that the accused had previously absconded after being released on provisional bail and had been involved in multiple theft cases across Ranchi, Patna, and Lucknow. The State argued that the heinous nature of the crime, coupled with the accused's criminal history, warranted the imposition of the death penalty.

The court, after reviewing the evidence, observed that the crime was not a spontaneous act but a premeditated and meticulously executed assault.

The Court observed, “This is not a case where crime was the outcome of sudden spurt of passion, but was diabolically planned and ruthlessly executed. Evidence discloses that appellant stalked the deceased, attempted to take a room on rent in her house, and thereafter, stayed in a room in a nearby temple complex. He waited for the opportune moment and when the victim was alone in her house in the night of incidence, the offence was committed and immediately thereafter, the appellant absconded from the place of occurrence.”

“Absconding is a circumstance relevant under Section 8 of the Evidence Act, and as no explanation has been offered to it, therefore an adverse inference is liable to be drawn for absconding after the crime. Each of these circumstances have been conclusively proved by eye witness accounts. No plausible explanation has been offered to these proved circumstances by the appellant, rather false answers have been given which adds to the chain of circumstance. The DNA profile generated from the vaginal swab has matched with that of the blood sample of the appellant,” the Court further noted.

The court emphasized that deterrence is a recognized objective of penal law, alongside reformation and crime prevention. The guidelines for imposing capital punishment have been established by a series of judicial precedents.

The court noted that this was not the accused's first offense, as he had previously raped a minor girl, filmed the incident, and made it viral. After being granted bail, he absconded. The court also observed that he had been involved in multiple cases of theft, including stealing mobiles, computers, and other electronic goods in Patna, Lucknow, and Ranchi, where he had been charge-sheeted in most instances.

“In order to conceal his identity, he was using stolen mobiles. These are cases which relate to the period both before and after the present incidence which took place in 2016. Conduct of the appellant does not reflect a semblance of remorse and any hope for reform. ... Against the weight of these aggravating circumstances, it is indeed difficult neigh impossible, to ferret any mitigating circumstance,” the court said.

On these grounds, the court upheld the death sentence imposed by the lower court and dismissed the criminal appeal.

Case Title: The State of Jharkhand V. Rahul Kumar

LL Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Jha) 148

Click Here To Read Judgement