Korba Gangrape-Murder | 'Shocks Conscience But Not Rarest Of Rare Case': Chhattisgarh HC Commutes Death Penalty Of 5 Men

While upholding their conviction, a bench of Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha and Justice Bibhu Datta Guru noted that the trial Court had failed to take into consideration the probability of the convict/appellants to be reformed and rehabilitated.

“…it has only taken into consideration the crime and the manner in which it was committed and has not given effective opportunity of hearing on the question of sentence to the appellants,” the bench further noted.

The Court added that while the brutal murder and rape of 16-year-old minor and tow of her relatives (father and 4-year-old niece) shocks the conscious of the society at large, but there is no evidence on record that the convict/appellants cannot be reformed or rehabilitated.

"...though the appellants have committed the offence of murder of three innocent persons out of which one was a minor girl of about 16 years and other was a minor girl of about 4 years. The minor girl aged 16 years was brutally raped before she was done to death which is barbaric, inhuman, heinous and extremely brutal. The murder has been done in a brutal manner by smashing the heads with stones. These are the incriminating circumstances, but there is no evidence on record that the convict/appellants cannot be reformed or rehabilitated. No criminal antecedents have been shown against them," the division bench noted.

Thus, considering the age of the appellants and upon thoughtful consideration, the bench opined that death penalty was not warranted in the facts and circumstances of the case as it was not a 'rarest of rare case' and instead, imprisonment for remainder of their life would be completely adequate and would meet the ends of justice.

The case in brief

Accused-Santram Majhwar (49), Abdul Jabbar (34), Anil Kumar Sarthi (24), Pardeshi Ram (39) and Anand Ram Panika (29) were convicted by a fast-track court in Korba under Sections 302 (murder), 376 (2)G (gangrape) and other sections of IPC and provisions of the SC-ST Act and POCSO Act. Another accused, Umashanakar Yadav (26), was sentenced to life imprisonment.

As per the prosecution's case, the deceased persons, along with their entire family, used to live at the house of appellant Santram Manjhwar and graze his cattle.

In lieu of doing the said work, they were to receive Rs. 8K per year and 10 kg of rice per month, but Manjhwar did not pay the dues for the entire year and had given only Rs. 600 for grazing the cattle, and only 10 kg of rice was given per month. Thus, the family members of the deceased decided to go back to their village.

On the date of the incident, i.e. January 29, 2021, when the deceased persons were at the bus stand, the appellant, Manjhwar, conspired with his accomplice and other accused persons came there and told the victims that he would drop them on their motorcycles.

Thereafter, he took them to some place and on the way, under the pre-planned conspiracy, took the victim/deceased 'B' (16-year-old girl) to the incident site and raped her. When deceased 'A' (father) opposed this, he was beaten with sticks and stones and done to death.

The victim/deceased 'B' was also assaulted by stones and left her thinking that she was dead. The deceased 'C' (4-year-old girl) was also killed by slamming her on a stone.

Dealing with the court reference and the appeal filed by them, the High Court, after appreciating the entire ocular and medical evidence on record, found that the accused were indeed the authors of the crime.

Thus, partly allowing their appeal, the court commuted their death sentence to life imprisonment while stressing that rather than applying a strict classification of the type of offence that warrants a death sentence, the Courts must focus on considering the aggravating and mitigating circumstances and arrive at an individualised sentencing outcome on case to case basis.