We Will Fail The Victim & Society If Capital Punishment Is Not Awarded: Jharkhand HC Confirms Death Sentence To Convict In Engineering Student's Rape & Murder Case
The Jharkhand High Court has confirmed the death sentence to man convicted for the rape and murder of a 19-year-old engineering student.
The Court affirmed the death sentence awarded by the trial court to a 25-year-old accused of the “horrendous act” demanding capital punishment. The Bench dismissed the criminal appeal filed by the accused against the conviction and sentence while observing, “We will fail the victim and the society if capital punishment is not awarded,” thereby classifying the case as fitting the "rarest of rare" criteria.
A Division Bench of Justice Ananda Sen and Justice Gautam Kumar Choudhary observed, “Victimology is not all about victim compensation, which cannot be a recompense for valuable life lost to crime in such circumstance. It is also to inflict punishment proportionate to the nature and gravity of offence. We will fail the victim and the society if capital punishment is not awarded in such cases.”
Senior Advocate R.S. Mazumdar appeared for the appellant, while Special PP Priya Shrestha represented the respondent.
The prosecution alleged that the victim, who was alone at her residence, was “savagely raped, throttled to death and then burnt to cause disappearance.”
The case was registered with the local police and eventually handed over to CBI for investigation. The trial court convicted the accused under Sections 302, 376, 449, and 201 of the IPC and sentenced him to death.
Judgment of conviction and sentence by the trial court was assailed on the ground that there was no direct eye witness to the incident and the case was based on circumstantial evidence. The prosecution alleged that it was only after the vaginal swab, nail clippings and other body materials were sent for chemical analysis to FSL, then based on the DNA report, the identity of the accused was established as the assailant.
The High Court, while upholding the death sentence, noted the brutal nature of the crime calling it the “hallmarks of a professional criminal.” The Court further noted that the crime was “diabolically planned and ruthlessly executed.” Moreover, the accused’s complete lack of remorse was also noted by the Court.
“The overwhelming circumstantial and scientific evidence leads to an inescapable conclusion that it was this appellant and none else who was the author of the diabolical crime. Judgment of conviction is accordingly affirmed under Sections 302, 376, 449 and 201 of the IPC,” the Court observed.
The Bench noted that capital punishment was sanctioned by the law and had been retained in the newly amended Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. The Court stated that the Constitutionality of the Death Sentence has been upheld by the Supreme Court.
The Court referred to the guidelines laid down by the Supreme Court in Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab (1980) to determine the question of rarest of rare cases. The Apex Court had explained that there must be “something uncommon about the crime which renders sentence of imprisonment for life inadequate and calls for a death sentence.” Secondly, “If the murder has been committed after previous planning and involves extreme brutality.”
Consequently, the Court held, “Horrendous act of the appellant demands capital punishment under Section 302 of the IPC, and accordingly Death Sentence awarded by the learned trial Court is confirmed. In view of the Death Sentence awarded, no separate sentence is awarded under Sections 449, 376 and 201 of the IPC.”
Accordingly, the High Court confirmed the death sentence.
Cause Title: Rahul Kumar @ Rahul Raj @ Raj Srivastava @ Rocky Raj @ Aryan @ Ankit v. The State of Jharkhand
Appellant: Senior Advocate R.S. Mazumdar; Advocate Rohan Mazumdar
Respondent: Special PP Priya Shrestha; ASGI Anil Kumar