No Criminal History: Madhya Pradesh HC Commutes Death Sentence Of Man Convicted For Rape & Murder Of Minor Girl
The Madhya Pradesh High Court commuted death penalty imposed on a man being convicted in case of rape and murder of a minor girl.
The Jabalpur Bench was deciding a case originating from the Judgment of the Trial Court by which the said man was convicted under Sections 302 and 376(a)(b) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and sentenced to death penalty.
A Division Bench comprising Justice Vivek Agarwal and Justice Devnarayanan Mishra observed, “… we find that there is no criminal history of the appellant. Learned trial Court has not taken this aspect into consideration. It has only said that since such offences are on rise against minor daughters, which are indicative of perverted mind, then with a view to save the dreams of minor children, conclusive punishment is required to be given to such convicts.”
Public Prosecutor Aditya Narayan Gupta appeared for the Petitioner while Senior Advocate Uma Kant Sharma appeared for the Respondent.
Facts of the Case -
Sentence including death penalty being inflicted, the case was sent to the High Court in reference by the Trial Court as per the requirements under Section 336 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC). The convicted man also preferred an Appeal before the Court under Section 374(2) of CrPC, challenging the conviction and penalty on the ground that his case was based upon circumstantial evidence and there was no witness/evidence that the victim was last seen with him. As per the prosecution case, a missing person report was lodged in 2019 saying that the victim had left her home in the name of buying certain goods from a colony shop but did not return.
The victim was a minor. Resultantly, her father went to the shop and the shopkeeper informed that few minutes back, the victim had taken the item. She was then searched in the house of her friends but it was of no avail. Thereafter, the victim’s father went towards the nala and he saw his daughter lying dead on a chamber near nala. Later on, it was revealed that the victim was subjected to rape and murder. Her father claimed that the accused/Respondent raper her daughter and put her to death.
The High Court after hearing the arguments from both sides, said, “… conviction of the appellant under Sections 302, 376(ab), 377, 201, 363, 366 IPC, cannot be faulted with. … coming to the issue of sentence, the Supreme Court in Mohinder Singh (supra) has held that the doctrine of “rarest of rare” confines two aspects and when both the aspects are satisfied only then the death penalty can be imposed. Firstly, the case must clearly fall within the ambit of “rarest of rare” and secondly, when the alternative option of life imprisonment is unquestionably foreclosed.”
The Court added that in life sentence, there is a possibility of achieving deterrence, rehabilitation, and retribution in different degrees but the same does not hold true for the death penalty.
“It is unique in its absolute rejection of the potential of convict to rehabilitate and reform. It extinguishes life and thereby terminates the being, therefore, puts an end anything to do with the life. This is the big difference between two punishments. Thus, before imposing death penalty, it is imperative to consider the same. It is further held that for satisfying the second aspect of “rarest of rare” doctrine, the court will have to provide clear evidence as to why the convict is not fit for any kind of reformatory and rehabilitation scheme”, it noted.
Furthermore, the Court observed that though the accused tried to submit that since there was no motive to kill the minor and throttling was accidental, resulting in incidental death of the minor, but that is not the aspect to be taken into consideration, especially when it is apparent that deceased was a child of less than 12 years of age.
“Her privacy was brutally violated and then she being known to the appellant, her life was terminated, then means of termination becomes secondary and will not be of any consequence. However, taking into consideration the judgment of the Supreme Court in Pappu (supra), when a mid-way approach is adopted, then we have no hesitation in maintaining his sentence under Sections 302, 376(ab), 377, 201, 363, 366 of the IPC, but societal interest can be balanced by holding that appellant shall remain in custody for the remaining period of his life rather than for 14, 20 or 30 years as offence under Section 5(m) of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, is made out for which the punishment is not less than 20 years, but which may extend to imprisonment for life, which shall mean imprisonment for the remainder of natural life of that person”, it concluded.
The Court, therefore, upheld the conviction of the accused except the death sentence and commuted the same into that of imprisonment for life for the remainder of his natural life.
Accordingly, the High Court answered the Reference, partly allowed the Criminal Appeal, and commuted the death penalty.
Cause Title- In Reference v. Vishnu Bhamore (Neutral Citation: 2024:MPHC-JBP:56065)
Appearance:
Petitioner: Public Prosecutor Aditya Narayan Gupta
Respondent: Senior Advocate Uma Kant Sharma and Advocate P.N. Tiwari.
