Rape & Murder Of 4-Year-Old: Madhya Pradesh High Court Commutes Convict's Death Penalty To Life Sentence Without Remission

Observing that the case does not fall under the category of the rarest of rare, the Madhya Pradesh High Court commuted a convict's sentence of death penalty to life imprisonment without remission, in a case for the murder and rape of a 3 years and 4 month old girl.

The division bench of Chief Ravi Malimath and Justice Vishal MIshra said, “Although in the instant case, the prosecution has successfully established the case beyond any reasonable doubt against the accused but the theory of residual doubt has to be applied as a safeguard against the routine capital sentencing keeping in mind the irreversibility of death. The age of the accused is required to be seen and whether there is a possibility for reformation or not is required to be kept in mind prior to sentencing for death.”

“Applying the aforesaid test, it cannot be said that the present case is falling under the category of ‘rarest of rare case’. Therefore, this Court deems it appropriate to modify the sentence awarded to the appellant under various sections,” added the court.

It was hearing the death reference and appeal of 24-years-old Jitendra Uikey convicted under Sections 366, 378 (2) (j), 376 (2)(m), 376AB, 376A, 302, 201 of IPC and Sections 5, 6 of POCSO and sentenced to death for committing rape and murder of 4-years-old girl.

According to the prosecution, the accused, who is also a distant relative of the victim, took her away from her grandmother's house on the pretext of buying a toffee. Thereafter, the girl went missing, and her father filed a missing report. Upon investigation, it was found that Jitendra had taken her away, and she was last seen with him.

Later, the accused in his disclosure statement said that he had raped and killed the victim by stifling her to death. The body of the victim was recovered from the forest after his disclosure, submitted the prosecution.

On analysing the evidence on record, including the disclosure statement, testimony of neighbours that he was last seen with the victim, DNA report and other evidence, the court came to the conclusion that “the entire chain of circumstances is proved. From the aforesaid analysis, it is apparently clear that the trial Court has not committed any error in holding the appellant guilty and convicting and sentencing him as stated above.”

However, referring to Machhi Singh v. State of Punjab, the court noted that it is required to be seen that whether a case falls within the category of the rarest of rare and the brutality, or the gruesome or heinous nature of the crime, the state of mind, the socio-economic background of the offender etc. are also required to be taken into consideration.

In order to analyse the aggravating and mitigating circumstances, the court noted the following aggravating circumstances: the age of the victim - who was only 3 years and 4 months old; the brutality of the rape; the relationship of trust and confidence that the deceased reposed in the accused; and the fact that the accused tried to destroy evidence and hide the dead body.

On the other hand, the mitigating circumstances found were that the accused belonged to a weaker socio-economic background, the age of the accused, his dependent mother, and the fact that he had no criminal antecedents.

The bench noted that the mitigating circumstances are established in the present case. “As pointed out already, the accused was 24 years of age and the victim was a child aged about 4 years. The state of mind of the accused is indicative of the fact that just to fulfill his lust for sex, he committed the rape on the victim aged 4 years and murdered her and hid her dead body in the jungle,” said the court.

Although the offence has been committed taking advantage of the position that the victim was known to the accused but the fact remains that it does not constitute a case which could be stated to be falling under the category of rarest of rare case, added the Court.

Consequently, the criminal appeal was partly allowed. “Therefore, this Court deems it appropriate to modify the sentence awarded to the appellant under various sections. Instead of death penalty being given to the accused-appellant for offence under Sections 376AB, 376A and 302 of IPC, he is punished with an imprisonment for life without any remission,” said the bench.

Case Title: In reference received from Sessions Judge, Raisen (M.P) v. Jitendra Uikey

Appearance: S.S. Chouhan, PP

Akash Choudhary, Amicus Curiae.

Click Here To Read/Download Judgment