'No Probability Of Reformation, Danger To Society' : Supreme Court Upholds Death Penalty To Man For Rape & Murder Of 8 Year Old Disabled Girl

The Supreme Court on Friday upheld the death penalty awarded to a 37-year old man for the rape and murder of a seven and a half year old girl who was mentally and physically challenged.

The crime occurred in 2013 in Rajasthan, when the convict Manoj Pratap Singh was around 28 years old.

A 3-judges bench comprising Justices AM Khanwilkar, Dinesh Maheshwari and CT Ravikumar observed that the crime in question had been of "extreme depravity", particularly looking at the vulnerable state of the victim and also the manner of committing the crime.

The victim was kidnapped by the convict on a stolen motorcycle by misusing the trust gained by offer of confectionary items. Thereafter, she was raped and her head was smashed, resulting in multiple injuries including fracture of frontal bone. There were gruesome injuries on the private parts of the victim.

In this backdrop, the Supreme Court observed,

"In the present case, where all the elements surrounding the offence as also all the elements surrounding the offender cut across the balance sheet of aggravating and mitigating circumstances, we are clearly of the view that there is absolutely no reason to commute the sentence of death to any other sentence of lesser degree. Even the alternative of awarding the sentence of imprisonment for whole of the natural life with no remission does not appear justified in view of the nature of crimes committed by the appellant and looking to his incorrigible conduct."

The convict urged that he was only 28 years of age when the crime was committed. Further, he has a family with wife and minor daughter and aged father.

However, the Supreme Court was of the view that these mitigating factors are pitted against several other factors pertaining his antecedents and that there appears no probability of his reformation and rehabilitation.

Firstly, the Court noted that the convict had criminal antecedents and was involved in at least 4 cases for destruction of public properties, theft and attempt to murder. Also, the present crime was committed with the aid of a stolen motorcycle.

Further, the Court noted that even after conviction, the convict was convicted for the murder of another jail-mate and had also earned a 7 day punishment in jail for quarrelling with another inmate.

"..in the present case, the further shocking and disturbing factor is that even while in jail, the appellant's conduct has not been free from blemish where, apart from quarrelling with other inmate on 17.04.2015 and earning 7 days' punishment, the appellant had been accused and convicted of the offence of yet another murder, this time of a co-inmate of the jail, while joining hands with three other inmates".

The Court even went to the extent of saying that the convict was a "danger to the maintenance of order in the society".

"Read as a whole, the fact-sheet concerning the appellant leads only the logical deduction that there is no possibility that he would not relapse again in this crime if given any indulgence. A fortiori, there appears no probability of his reformation and rehabilitation. This possibility of the appellant relapsing in the same crime over again and nil probability of his reformation/rehabilitation is a direct challenge as also danger to the maintenance of order in the society. Hence, the facts of the present case, taken as a whole, make it clear that it is unlikely that the appellant, if given an absolution, would not be capable of and would not be inclined to commit such a crime again", the Court observed.

The Court said that looking at the "incorrigible conduct" of the convict, the alternative of awarding life sentence for the whole remainder of life without commutation was also not possible.

"In the present case, where all the elements surrounding the offence as also all the elements surrounding the offender cut across the balance sheet of aggravating and mitigating circumstances, we are clearly of the view that there is absolutely no reason to commute the sentence of death to any other sentence of lesser degree. Even the alternative of awarding the sentence of imprisonment for whole of the natural life with no remission does not appear justified in view of the nature of crimes committed by the appellant and looking to his incorrigible conduct".

The bench said that it has "no other option but to confirm the death sentence awarded to the appellant, for that being inevitable in this particular case".

The prosecution case rested on circumstantial evidence to the effect that the victim was lastly seen with the appellant when he took her away; that the dead body of victim and other articles related with the crime were recovered at the instance of the appellant; that the appellant failed to satisfactorily explain his whereabouts and his knowledge of the location of dead body; and that the medical and other scientific evidence was consistent with the prosecution case. Thus, according to the prosecution, the entire chain of events was complete and was conclusive of the guilt of the appellant, excluding any other hypothesis.

On the contrary, the appellant asserted that he was falsely implicated, though he did not adduce any evidence in defence.

The investigation and the trial in the case was completed in record time, in a matter of months. The death penalty was awarded by the trial court within 10 months of the crime.

Case Title : Manoj Pratap Singh versus State of Rajasthan

Citation : 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 557

Appearances : Senior Advocate A Sirajudeen for the appellant; Senior Advocate Dr.Manish Singhvi for the State

Head Notes

Death Sentence -Section 302 IPC - Death sentenced imposed on man for rape and murder of 8 year old mentally and physically challenged girl upheld- the crime had been of extreme depravity, which shocks the conscience, particularly looking to the target (a seven-and-a-half-year old mentally and physically challenged girl) and then, looking to the manner of committing murder, where the hapless victim's head was literally smashed, resulting in multiple injuries including fracture of frontal bone (Para 58).

Death sentence - no probability of reformation - convict has criminal antecedents- also involved in crimes in jail post-conviction-In the present case, where all the elements surrounding the offence as also all the elements surrounding the offender cut across the balance sheet of aggravating and mitigating circumstances, we are clearly of the view that there is absolutely no reason to commute the sentence of death to any other sentence of lesser degree(Para 58).

Click here to read/download the judgment