SC Commutes Death Penalty Of Man Convicted For Rape & Murder Of Minor Girl; Says He Is Not a “Hardened Criminal, Who Cannot Be Reformed"
While observing that the accused is not a hardened criminal who cannot be reformed, the Supreme Court commuted the death penalty to a fixed imprisonment of 20 years imposed in the rape and murder of a 14-year-old girl.
The Court stated that while the accused's age—who was 22 at the time of the incident—was not the sole factor to be taken into consideration, other factors, such as the loss of his mother and brother at a “tender age” and his “socio-economic backward stratum” background, should also be considered to justify the award of death penalty.
A Bench of Justice B.R. Gavai, Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra and Justice K.V. Viswanathan observed, “It cannot be said that the appellant is a hardened criminal, who cannot be reformed. The possibility of the appellant, if given the chance of being reformed, cannot be ruled out.”
Senior Advocate N. Hariharan represented the appellant, while DAG Bhupendra Pratap Singh appeared for the respondent.
The accused had challenged the decision of the Madhya Pradesh High Court which upheld the decision of the trial court which convicted the accused under Sections 450, 376(2)(i), 376D, 376A and 302 read with 34 of the IPC awarding death penalty under Sections 376A and 302 of the IPC.
The prosecution alleged that a 14-year-old girl was raped by the accused in a village in 2017. The accused then poured kerosene over the victim and set her afire, causing her to die in agony seven days later.
The accused had argued that the case was not a ‘rarest of the rare’ case, which would justify awarding the death penalty. It was also argued that the Trial Court did not consider the balance between the mitigating circumstances and aggravating circumstances while awarding the death penalty. The defence had also submitted that the case of the prosecution rested on the ‘inconsistent’ dying declarations.
The Supreme Court stated that “the dying declaration recorded by the Executive Magistrate…is reliable and trustworthy.” The Court remarked that in the said dying declaration, all the witnesses clearly stated that the deceased after coming out from the room in flames narrated the incident about the accused committing the crime.
“In that view of the matter, we do not find that there is any error in the concurrent orders of the Trial Judge and the High Court convicting the appellant for the offences punishable under Sections 450, 376(2)(i), 376D, 376A and 302 read with 34 of the IPC and Section 5(g)/6 of the POCSO,” the Court held.
The Bench then had to examine whether the present case fell in the category of ‘rarest of rare case’ to confirm the death penalty.
“It is not in dispute that the appellant lost his mother at the tender age of 8 years and his elder brother at the age of 10 years. The appellant was brought up by his father as a single parent. The appellant has close family ties with his father, his sister, who is married and his grand-mother. Though, Shri Singh is right that the age of the appellant at the time of commission of crime solely cannot be taken into consideration, however the age of the appellant/accused at the time of commission of crime along with other factors can certainly be taken into consideration as to whether the death penalty needs to be commuted or not,” the Court remarked.
The Court stated, “We find that in the present case the confirmation of death penalty would not be justified. However, at the same time we also find that the ordinary sentence of life i.e. 14 years imprisonment with remission would not meet the ends of justice. In our considered view, the present case would fall in the middle path.”
Consequently, the Court held, “We find that in the present case the confirmation of death penalty would not be justified…The order of conviction is maintained however the death penalty awarded under Sections 376A and 302 IPC is commuted to rigorous imprisonment for 20 years.”
Accordingly, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal to the extent.
Cause Title: Rabbu @ Sarvesh v. The State Of Madhya Pradesh (Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 720)
Appearance:
Appellant: Senior Advocate N. Hariharan; Advocates Shreya Rastogi, Bhavesh Seth, M.A. Niyazi, Anauntta Shankar, Sharian Mukherji, Sana Singh and Punya Rekha Angara; AOR Zehra Khan
Respondent: DAG Bhupendra Pratap Singh; AOR Mrinal Gopal Elker; Advocates Abhimanyu Singh and Abhinav Shrivastava
