Rape & Murder Of 4 Year Old Girl : SC Clarifies Order Commuting Death Penalty, Convict To Undergo 20 Years Imprisonment For Rape Offences

The Bench treated the application as a review petition as it demanded a reconsideration of the sentence imposed on the accused.

In case of all these 'other offences', the Courts below had awarded punishment of life imprisonment for the remainder part of his natural life. Amicus Curiae, Mr. B.H. Marlapalle submitted that considering the amendment to the POCSO Act whereby the qualification of "it shall be for the remainder part of his natural life" was added to the punishment of life imprisonment in Section 6 was brought into force after the offence was committed by the accused, the punishment as it stood after amendment could not have been awarded to the accused. With respect to sentence for offences punishable under Section 376(2)(i), 376(2)(m) of IPC, the Senior Advocate argued -

"Having granted benefit of reduction of sentence to term sentence of twenty years instead of imprisonment for the "remainder of his natural life" for the offence under Section 376A of the IPC, the case of the appellant be considered on same lines with respect to offences punishable under Section 376 (2) (i) and 376 (2) (m) of the IPC."

Advocate, Mr. P.V. Yogeshwaran appearing on behalf of the State did not object to the submissions made by the Amicus.

The Bench noted that it had made a conscious decision to impose a lesser sentence under Section 376A IPC in order to attempt to balance the scales of retributive and restorative justice. It accepted the submission made by Mr. Marlapalle that -

"...if the sentence of life imprisonment imposed by the Sessions Court and confirmed by the High Court, is also confirmed by this Court for the offence under Sections 376(2)(i) and 376(2)(m), IPC and for the offence under Section 5 (i) and 5 (m) read with Section 6 of POCSO Act, then the life imprisonment would mean imprisonment for the remainder of the petitioner's (original appellant's) natural life, and in that case, the very purpose of the court in not imposing the sentence of life imprisonment for the remainder of petitioner's life for the offence under Section 376(A) of IPC, would be frustrated."

Accordingly, the Bench modified the sentences to the extent that the accused would undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 20 years for the offence under Sections 376(2)(i) and 376(2)(m) of IPC, and for a period of 20 years for the offence under Section 5 (i) and 5 (m) read with Section 6 of the POCSO Act. As per the order dated 19.04.2022, he is to undergo life imprisonment for offence punishable under Section 302 IPC and a period of twenty years for the offence under section 376A, IPC. The punishment imposed is to run concurrently.

So, in effect, the convict has to undergo life imprisonment for the offence of murder and life imprisonment for 20 years for the other rape offences. Since the condition "till the remainder of life" has not been applied in the case, the convict will be eligible to seek remission of sentence after 20 years.

While commuting the death penalty, the Bench had quoted Oscar Wilde as under -

"The only difference between the saint and the sinner is that every saint has a past and every sinner has a future."

It is relevant to note that in July, 2022, the Supreme Court had dismissed a petition filed by the mother of the four-year old child to review its order of commuting the death sentence of the accused. However, the court said that the commutation was done by it after bestowing attention to the relevant factors.

[Case Title: Mohd. Firoz v. State of MP RP(Crl) No. 282 of 2022]

Click here to read/download the order