'Convict Himself Has Minor Daughter, Chances Of Rehabilitation Can't Be Ruled Out': MP High Court Commutes Death Sentence For Rape & Murder Of 4-Yr-Old

The division bench of Justice Subodh Abhayankar and Justice S.K. Singh commuted the death sentence of the Appellant to 20 years of imprisonment-

Be that as it may, considering the totality of the evidence brought on record, viz., the death sentence was awarded to the appellant on the same day on which he was found guilty, depriving the appellant of his valuable right to bring to the notice of the court any mitigating circumstances in his favour, the injuries suffered by the victim, and the fact that the appellant who himself is a father of a minor daughter, is aged 30 years with no criminal record, chances of his rehabilitation cannot be ruled out, as also the various decisions rendered by the Supreme Court dealing with the subject mannter, while affirming the conviction of the appellant as recorded by the Trial Court, we find it fit to impose a sentence of Twenty Years instead of Death Penalty on the appellant.

Facts of the case were that the parents of the deceased had filed a missing report of their daughter. upon search by the police, the body of the deceased was found in a dilapidated bungalow. On further investigation, the police caught hold of the Appellant who confessed to his crime. He had admitted to the police that he took the girl while she was sleeping and committed rape upon her and that because she was screaming, he had to strangulate her to death. The trial court convicted him for offences punishable under Section 363, 366-A, 376AB, 376A, 302, 201 IPC & under Section 5(m), 6 POCSO Act. Pursuant to the same, the lower court awarded capital punishment to the Appellant and sent the reference to the Court for conformation. The Appellant also preferred an appeal against his conviction challenging the decision of his conviction.

The Appellant argued before the Court that the case was based purely on circumstantial evidence and that he was falsely implicated on account of CCTV footage, wherein his identification could not be verified distinctly. He further submitted that even otherwise the death penalty awarded to him was on the higher side as his case did not fall under the category of 'rarest of rare'. He also argued that the chance of his rehabilitation could not be ruled out considering his young age with no criminal antecedents and a full life ahead of him. Therefore, he pleaded that his death sentence may be remitted to life imprisonment if the Court came to the conclusion that no interference was warranted in his conviction.

Vehemently opposing the commutation, the State argued that the deceased was a four years old girl who had her full life ahead of her, which was cut short by the Appellant due to his salacious mindset. It was further submitted that the Appellant was a pervert and had no place in the society. It was thus concluded that no penalty lesser than the capital punishment was appropriate so as to do proper justice in the matter.

Examining the submissions of the Parties and the trial court record, the Court observed that from the testimonies of the witnesses, nothing substantive could be extracted. However, the Court noted, the DNA evidence clearly indicated the involvement of the Appellant-

…the DNA report being positive is the substantial prove of the involvement of the appellant in the commission of the aforesaid offence and there is no reason for this Court also to take a different view from that of one taken by the trial Court in this regard. In view of the same, so far as the finding of guilt of the appellant is concerned, the same is hereby affirmed.

Analysing relevant decisions of the Apex Court vis-à-vis murder and injuries inflicted upon the deceased by their respective perpetrators, the Court opined that considering the bar set for cruelty, it has become extremely difficult to bring a case within the ambit of 'rarest of the rare' category. The Court further noted that a capital punishment not executed with a reasonable period loses its effect on people-

On the aforementioned discussion, this court is of the considered view that with the parameters of cruelty set so high nowadays for an offence to fall under the ambit of rarest of rare, as has also been recorded by the Supreme Court in the case of Mohammad Firoz (supra) {please see para 40 (supra)} it is, if not impossible, but is very difficult for any person to get the death penalty no matter how diabolic his actions are. It is also seen that even when the death penalty of an accused is affirmed by the Apex Court,, it would still not be acted uponleading to further suffering by the victims of the heinous crimes. The kith and kin of such victims who are also the victims, spent their lifetime in the hope that they would get some solace, some justice but all their hopes are crushed under the procedural system. This court is of the view that 'capital punishment' which is not awarded/executed within a reasonable time, loses its importance as a deterrence, as people have a very short memory and such offences usually get into oblivion, waiting for the next one to happen.

The Court further observed-

In such circumstances, this court is of the considered opinion that the Government must reconsider the provision of death penalty as a mode of punishment as deterrence so that at least the victims of such crimes would get on with their lives, accepting their fate and would be saved from nurturing a false hope for decades altogether.

Considering the case in totality, the Court confirmed the conviction of the Appellant, however, it found it fit to impose a sentence of twenty years on him instead of death penalty. The reference was accordingly decided and the appeal was partly allowed.