Telangana High Court Commutes Death Penalty of Three In Gang Rape And Murder Case, Sentences Them To Life Imprisonment Till Last Breath

The Telangana High Court has commuted the death penalty of three convicts in a case of gang rape and murder of a Schedule Caste women in 2019. The court said sentencing the convicts to undergo life imprisonment "with a rider to remain in custody till their last breath, without remission, would be an appropriate sentence".

The bench of Justice P.Naveen Rao and Justice Juvvadi Sridevi said that the intention of the persons in committing the murder was to "protect themselves from the consequences that would follow", in case the deceased discloses the incident to someone. Their action cannot be categorised as “extremely brutal” or “grotesque” or “diabolical” or “revolting” or “carried out in a dastardly manner so as to arouse intense and extreme indignation of the community,” said the court.

“No doubt, the same is henious, which shocks the conscience of society… the Court should fulfil the cry for justice of the family of the deceased and should also protect the society from such a looming danger. However, simultaneously, the Court should objectively weigh the evidence to see if the imposition of the death penalty is the only option for the Court, or a punishment can be chosen which would incapacitate the culprits, would deter others from committing such a crime in future, would permit the society to reform the culprit, and would still fulfill the need of justice of the society,” it added.

The court was hearing an appeal filed by three convicts - Shaik Babu, Shaik Shabuddin, and Shaik Maqdhoom, who had challenged the judgment of the trial court in Adilabad. They were awarded the death penalty for the gruesome crime of gang rape and murder of a utensil seller belonging to the SC community.

Case

In 2019 at Yellapatar village, the victim was gang-raped by the accused persons. Apprehending danger to their lives in case of the deceased revealing the matter to others, they decided to kill her and accordingly stabbed her to death with a knife. The trial court convicted the accused persons under Section 376D, 302 read with 34 of the IPC, and Section 3(1)(w-1) and Section 3(2)(v) of the SCs/STs (POA) Act, 1989.

The trial court awarded them the death penalty, holding that the case satisfied the test of ‘rarest of rare’ case.

It was the prosecution's case that the accused persons had confessed to the crime, and as a result, incriminating evidence such as blood-stained clothes, a knife, and the victim's mobile phone were discovered.

The medical reports established that seminal stains on the saree of the deceased matched the DNA profile of the accused persons, it was submitted. Additionally, it was argued that the testimony of the witnesses proved that the accused persons had followed the deceased to the place of the crime.

According to a postmortem examination conducted on the deceased's body, the cause of death was 'due to shock and hemorrhage as a result of a cut throat injury,' and there was evidence of recent vaginal sexual intercourse.

The prosecution argued that the circumstantial evidence established the link and proved the guilt of all three accused beyond a reasonable doubt.

The defence counsel argued not only on the merits of the case but also with regard to the sentence imposed by the trial court. It was argued that the circumstantial and medical evidence did not prove the guilt of the accused persons beyond a reasonable doubt.

Conviction Upheld

Rejecting the submissions of the defence, the division bench said, “Justice cannot be made sterile on the plea that it is better to let hundred guilty escape than punish an innocent.”

"Letting guilty escape is not doing justice according to law. A reasonable doubt is not an imaginary, trivial or merely possible doubt, but a fair doubt based upon reason and common sense. It must grow out of the evidence in the case. Vague hunches cannot take place of judicial evaluation. A judge does not preside over a criminal trial, merely to see that no innocent man is punished, but he also presides to see that a guilty man does not Both are public duties. Doubts would be called reasonable if they are free from a zest for abstract speculation. Law cannot afford any favourite other than truth," said the court.

The court held that the prosecution has established by leading cogent and convincing evidence that on 24.11.2019, while the deceased was going towards Ramnaik Thanda, the accused followed her and when she reached the fields in the outskirts of Ramnaik Thanda village, dragged her in to the bushes, committed rape on her one by one and thereafter, apprehending danger to their lives in the event of her disclosing the same to anybody, "A1 committed her murder by cutting her throat brutally with MO.11/knife and thereafter, A2 and A3 dishonestly took away the mobile phone and cash of Rs.200/- from the deceased.”

The Court took note of the views of the abolitionists and retentionists of capital punishment. It that abolitionists argue that modern civilization has moved far away from the primitive idea of punishment prescribed by Hammurabi, the first lawgiver of the West, which was “an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth.” It also took note of the arguments of retentionists that the society has a right to deny life to those who continue to pose a danger to the wellbeing and tranquility of the society at large.

"To kill is to be cruel and, therefore, all murders are cruel. But such cruelty may vary in its degree of culpability. And it is only when the culpability assumes the proportion of extreme depravity that “special reasons” can legitimately be said to exist," said the court. 

The Court said that a case, in order to belong to a “rarest of rare” category, must conform to the highest standards of judicial rigor and thoroughness, as the norm is an exceptionally narrow exception.

Referring to the catena of judgements of Apex Court including Machi Singh Bacchae Singh, it said that the “rarest of rare” dictum imposes a wide-ranging embargo on awarding death punishment, which can only be invoked if the facts of the case successfully satisfy double qualification, i.e., (i) that the case belongs to rarest of rare category; and (ii) the alternative option of life imprisonment will just not suffice the facts of the case.

"In the instant case, although a murder has been committed by A1 to A3, it appears to us that it was not a pre-planned murder. In fact, there is no evidence to show that A1 to A3 had a pre-meditated mind to commit the murder of the deceased. The fact that A1 to A3 have followed the deceased till reaching an isolated area and pulled her towards the bushes and when A1 tried to commit rape on her and when the deceased raised cries, A1 to A3 dragged her into the bushes and committed rape on her forcibly, clearly indicates that A1 to A3 followed the deceased with an intention to satisfy their lust, i.e., to commit rape on her and not to commit her murder. Hence, the element of “pre-planning” is conspicuously missing in the instant case," said the court. 

It held that the case does not fulfil the tests prescribed in Bachan Singh’s case and Machhi Singh’s case. Therefore, the case does not fall within the extreme category of “rarest of the rare”, said the court.

The bench also took note of the fact that accused persons were middle aged viz., 30, 40 and 35 years old as on the date of commission of the subject offence and belong to a backward caste. “We are not furnished with any report by the jail authorities suggesting that A1 to A3 are beyond reformation,” it observed.

The court also observed that,“the State and the society must try their level best to reform an accused. By throwing a young life into the mouth of death, the society and the State abdicate their primary duty to reform the offender.”

It added that even while a prisoner is incarcerated, a convict can be reformed to the extent that he can be employed within the jail administration and can become a role model for the other under-trial prisoners.

Case Title: State of Telangana v.Shaik Babu and others

Counsel for the appellants : Mr. T.Pradyumna Kumar Reddy, appearing for Mr. Mohd. Muzaffer Ullah Khan, counsel for the appellants/A1 and A3 and Mr. K.S.Rahul, counsel for appellant/A2

Counsel for the Respondents : Mr. C.Pratap Reddy

Click Here To Read/Download Judgment