Supreme Court Commutes Death Penalty Of Man Convicted For Rape-Murder Of 10 Yr Old Girl To Life Term Without Remission
The Supreme Court yesterday (July 16) converted the death penalty to life imprisonment without remission, extending to the natural life of the Appellant convicted for sexually assaulting and strangling to death a 10-year-old girl.
Although conscious of the brutality of crime, the Court reasoned that the death penalty cannot be sustained because the trial court and the High Court both considered the brutality of the crime as the sole criterion for awarding such punishment and did not consider factors like mitigating circumstances for determing that the case fell in the 'rarest of rare' category.
"A helpless child was at first, mercilessly raped after being lured into the appellant's hut on the pretext of buying sweets with the offered money. Thereafter, to hide the evidence of his crime, the child was strangulated by hand, in a defenseless condition...The Courts below have only commented on the brutality of the crime in question, to hand down the death penalty to the appellant. No other circumstance came to be discussed by the Courts in reaching the conclusion that the case forms part of the “rarest of the rare” category. Such an approach in our view cannot be sustained."
A bench comprising Justice Vikram Nath, Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Sandeep Mehta relied on Gudda v. State of M.P.(2013) wherein the Court, while commuting sentence of a death penalty convict to life imprisonment, where the victims were a pregnant lady and a five years old child, reiterated that brutality can't be the sole criterion for determining 'rarest of rare'.
Moreover, the Court also relied on Manoj v. State of M.P.(2023) wherein the Court, recognising that there is a huge disparity in the application of rarest of rare, reiterated two-step criteria for the uniform application of this doctrine. That is, in the first step, the courts have to determine the aggravating and mitigating circumstances. Upon identifying these circumstances, in the second step, the Court has to consider whether the option of awarding life imprisonment has been completely foreclosed or not.
"The Courts below have failed to make any detailed reference to the aggravating and mitigating circumstances surrounding the appellant. Moreover, the High Court, which was the Reference Court for confirmation of death sentence, though expounded on the requirement of law to consider aggravating and mitigating circumstances, failed to consider any of these circumstances – only dealing with the brutality of the incident."
In this case, the Court called for the report of the probation officer, jail administration and psychological evaluation to determine the mitigating circumstances. It found that the condition of the Appellant's family is "very pathetic" and they earn their livelihood by doing labour work. His psychological report suggested that the Appellant could not attend school and started working at the age of 12, and has good relations with his inmates and suffers no psychological disturbances.
"In light of the above discussion, taking into account the above mitigating circumstances and the threshold of “rarest of rare” category, we deem it appropriate to award life imprisonment without remission extending to the natural life of the appellant instead of the punishment of the death penalty."
The Appellant was awarded the death penalty by the Fast Track Court, Special Judge (POCSO), Dehradun, on charges under Sections 376, 377, 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1869 and Sections 5 and 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 ("POCSO") on consideration of the case being 'rarest of rare'. This was confirmed by the Uttarakhand High Court.
A bench upheld both the judgments of conviction of the POCSO Court and the High Court to the extent that the charges on account of recovery of the victim's body from the appellant's hut, the last seen theory and the DNA evidence are proved beyond a reasonable doubt.
"Taking a cumulative view of all the above circumstances, in our view, the prosecution has proven its case against the appellant, beyond reasonable doubt. In view of the above, we are not inclined to interfere with the findings of conviction concurrent in nature against the appellant."
The judgment authored by Justice Karol, therefore, allowed the present appeal partly and set aside the High Court of Uttarakhand's judgment dated January 7, 2020, and the judgment of the POCSO Court on sentencing.
Case Details: JAI PRAKASH v STATE OF UTTARAKHAND|CRIMINAL APPEAL NOS. 331 - 332 OF 2022
Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 720