Madhya Pradesh High Court Commutes Death Penalty Imposed On Man For Committing Rape Of Minor Relative
Jayanti Pahwa
27 Jun 2025 1:15 PM IST
The Madhya Pradesh High Court on Wednesday (June 25) commuted the death penalty awarded to a man convicted for rape of a minor girl aged 12 years. The court commuted the death penalty after noting that the convict was 24 years of age and had no criminal antecedents, except one murder case, which is under appeal.
The bench, however, upheld his conviction, observing that the "chain of all the circumstances is complete to point out towards the guilt of the appellant and nobody else. Therefore, as far as conviction is concerned, that is required to be upheld and is hereby upheld".
The division bench of Justice Vivek Agarwal and Justice Devnarayan Mishra, in its order, said,
"when all the facts and circumstances of the case especially evidence of PW-2 grandmother of the victim, PW-5 Madan, PW-12 Sudhanshu Ahirwar, dog handler, PW/15 Dr. Neelam Jain and Investigating officer of the case is taken into consideration, then there is evidence of last seen given by PW-2, evidence of PW-12 that dog after smelling cloths of the victim, had directly gone to the house of appellant, coupled with the fact that there is a DNA report which was promptly sampled and sent for examination, chain of all the circumstances is complete to point out towards the guilt of the appellant and nobody else. Therefore, as far as conviction is concerned, that is required to be upheld and is hereby upheld".
The court passed the said order in a criminal reference and criminal appeal against the conviction and death sentence awarded by the trial court. The trial court convicted the man of offences under Sections 302, 363, 366A, 376(3) read with Section 376(2)(f) of IPC and Section 5(n) read with Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012.
Background:
As per facts, the victim was returning from a village with her grandmother when they met the convict, who was their relative and offered to drop the victim on his bicycle. The grandmother returned home on foot and, upon reaching home, realised that the victim was nowhere to be found. Meanwhile, one Madan Adiwasi, who was collecting wood in the forest, found the victim's dead body, leading to the convict's arrest.
Senior Advocate Aditya Adhikari, representing the convict, argued that the case rested on the evidence of three witnesses, including the grandmother of the victim, who last saw her, a police witness, and an eye and panch witness. However, Senior Advocate Adhikari argued against the testimony of the eyewitness, claiming him to be an antagonistic witness.
Senior Advocate Adhikari also argued that the doctor who prepared the DNA report was not examined. Relying on the case of Karandeep Sharma v State of Uttarakhand, he argued that since the scientist who made the DNA report was not examined and the DNA report was not proved, then it casts a shadow upon the reliability of DNA profiling reports.
It was also argued that since the convict is 24 years of age, there are chances of rehabilitating him into society. It was also submitted that leniency should be shown, considering that the convict comes from a neglected and underprivileged part of society.
However, Public Prosecutor Nitin Kumar Gupta, representing the State, argued that the evidence of last seen as given by the grandmother cannot be overlooked. It was also argued that the sniffing dog had followed the victim's scent straightaway from the scene of the crime to the house of the convict. Additionally, the PP claimed that the collection of DNA samples was sent to the lab within two days, and therefore, no adverse inference can be drawn from the DNA reporting.
Findings:
The court noted that there were no allegations of tampering, improper sample collection or flawed testing methods. The DNA report was issued by qualified government experts and supported by other corroborating evidence. The court reiterated that in such cases, the expert's physical presence is not mandatory.
Additionally, the prosecution's case was further supported by multiple witnesses. The grandmother provided the 'last seen' evidence, while the dog squad traced the scent from the crime scene to the house of the convict. All evidence, including the DNA reports and testimonies, formed a consistent chain pointing to the guilt of the convict. Thus, the court upheld his conviction.
The court, while considering the appropriate sentence for the convict, weighed both the aggravating and mitigating factors. On the one hand, the convict was previously involved in another serious offence involving the murder of a senior citizen, indicating a disturbing pattern of behaviour.
However, the court noted two key mitigating circumstances- (i) the conviction in the earlier case of murder was under appeal, with concerns of possible interpolation of DNA evidence, and (ii) the convict, aged 24, had no prior criminal record before these incidents.
The court, relying on the principles established by the Supreme Court, noted that the death penalty should be imposed only in exceptional circumstances where the court is satisfied that the case qualifies as 'rarest of the rare' and the possibility of reforming the convict.
Citing the case of Ramesh K. Naika v Registrar General High Court of Karnataka, the court reiterated that focus should be on the possibility of reform and whether a life sentence without remission would suffice.
"There are no reports of proven misbehaviour or erratic behaviour of the appellant in the prison. It is also true that appellant was aged about 24 years. Prior to that, he had no criminal antecedents", the bench added.
The court, thus, imposed a life sentence, clarifying that it would mean imprisonment until the end of the convict's natural life. Additionally, the bench directed that no remission should be granted until the convict has served at least 25 years in prison.
For Convict: Senior Advocate Aditya Adhikari with Advocates Kaustubh Chaturvedi and Pramod Singh Tomar
For State: Public Prosecutor Nitin Kumar Gupta