“Has family to look after”: Allahabad High Court commutes death sentence of 10 year old’s rapist

The Allahabad High Court recently commuted the death penalty awarded to a man, who had been held guilty by the trial court of raping and murdering a 10-year-old girl, to life imprisonment.

The bench of Justice Ramesh Sinha and Justice Renu Agarwal observed that the man had committed the offence when he was merely 20 years old, and now at the age of 29, he has a wife and children to look after.

Court opined, "The convict committed the crime which is abominable, vicious and ferocious in nature and has caused scar on society....But the circumstances of the accused should be considered as well before awarding punishment".

Court noted that there was no evidence that the man had committed the crime with pre-planning or pre-ponderance and also he had no criminal history. Therefore, stressing that there was no evidence on record to show that there is no possibility of improvement in the conduct of the man, the court opined that in the instant matter sentence of life imprisonment would accomplish the ends of justice. 

"If crime is said to be of such a brutal, depraved or heinous nature so as to fall in the category of rarest of rare, he must be adequately punished for that. But we have to consider the circumstances of accused also before awarding punishment...It would be pertinent to mention that death penalty is an exception only when life imprisonment would be inadequate to the crime," the court said. 

Court was hearing a capital reference as well as a criminal appeal filed by one Govind Pasi. In 2018, Pasi had been convicted and punished by the Trial Court with imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs. 20,000 under Section 376 IPC, and death penalty with 20,000 fine under Section 302 IPC.

The Trial Court had found that Pasi had raped and murdered a 10-year-old girl when she was on her way to her school. The dead body of the girl child was found in a nearby sugarcane field and her scarf was wrapped around her neck.

Filing the appeal, Pasi's counsel contended that the prosecution case was based on a chain of circumstantial evidences and which was not complete. He highlighted that Pasi was not named in the FIR and his name came to light only during the investigation.

Therefore, stating that he is a very young boy with no criminal history, and his name was implicated due to political rivalry, Pasi's counsel urged the court to allow the appeal against conviction. 

On the other hand, the state counsel submitted before the court that three prosecution witnesses had seen Pasi standing in front of the sugarcane field and the girl running towards her school on the day of the incident. Moreover, one witness had even proved that he saw that the victim girl was being taken towards the field by Pasi. 

Therefore, stating that the prosecution had been able to prove last seen evidence and the chain of circumstances was also closely related to prove that Pasi had taken the victim to the sugarcane fields, where she was later found dead, the state counsel urged the court to affirm Pasi's conviction and punishment. 

After perusing all the documents and evidence produced, the court held that each link in the chain of circumstantial evidence had been adequately established by the prosecution. Therefore, court upheld Pasi's conviction while modifying the sentence. 

Case Title: Capital Case - State of U.P. v. Govind Pasi and Criminal Appeal- Govind Pasi v. State of U.P