MP HC Commutes Death Sentence in Brutal Rape of 4-Yr-Old, Citing Youth, Reform

In a deeply disturbing case involving sexual assault and attempted murder of a 4-year-old girl, the Madhya Pradesh High Court recently commuted the death sentence awarded to the 20-year-old convict Rajaram, converting it to 25 years of rigorous imprisonment under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act (POCSO).

The judgment was passed by a Division Bench comprising Justice Vivek Agarwal and Justice Devnarayan Mishra.

While upholding the conviction, the High Court observed that the “act of the appellant was barbaric” but not “brutal” to the degree that would warrant capital punishment. The Court noted that although the convict committed a heinous crime upon a child aged just 4 years and 3 months, kidnapping her, sexually assaulting her and leaving her for dead, there was no medical evidence establishing permanent disability.

"...no doubt that appellant's act was brutal as he has committed rape upon the victim of four years and three months of age and after committing rape also throttled her treating her dead and thrown the victim in such a place where she could not be searched and left the spot but it is also clear that he has not committed brutality...", Court said.

The bench cited absence of prior criminal history, the convict’s young age, tribal background, and lack of education as mitigating factors against imposition of the death penalty.

"The background of the appellant is that he is uneducated youth of 20 years of age and belongs to the tribal community and his parents never tried to give him education and not properly take care of him, therefore he has left his house and was self bread earner and living and working in a Dhaba (Restaurant). Atmosphere in the Dhaba is not such, by which it can be inferred that he was given the proper atmosphere to grow up...", Court added.

The bench relied heavily on the principles laid down in Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab and reaffirmed in Bhagirath @ Bhaggi v. State of MP (2024), particularly the rarest of rare doctrine, to strike a balance between aggravating and mitigating circumstances.

Trial court’s sentence of death under Section 6 POCSO Act was therefore altered to 25 years of incarceration along with a fine of Rs.10,000 and an additional year’s imprisonment in default.

Brief Background

The crime occurred on the night of October 30–31, 2022, in District Khandwa. The 4-year-old victim had come to her relative's home for the Dussehra holidays. While sleeping inside a hut with a young cousin, the child was abducted after the convict, a local dhaba worker, requested a cot to sleep outside the house.

The next morning, both the victim and the accused were found missing. Upon his arrest and disclosure, the unconscious and injured child was recovered from a mango orchard.

The trial court convicted Rajaram under the following provisions:

• Section 6, POCSO Act (aggravated penetrative sexual assault),

• Section 307 IPC (attempt to murder),

• Section 363 IPC (kidnapping),

• Section 450 IPC (house-trespass in order to commit offence punishable with imprisonment for life),

• Section 201 IPC (causing disappearance of evidence of offence).

Initially, he was sentenced to death under POCSO and given additional terms of rigorous imprisonment and fines under IPC offences.

Medical examinations confirmed sexual assault, with injuries including a 5 cm deep perineal tear and strangulation marks. Doctors from Bombay Hospital later noted complications such as urinary infection, brain swelling due to oxygen deprivation, and swelling near the spine.

Crucially, the DNA profile from the convict matched with samples recovered from the victim’s frock, undergarments, and bodily swabs, as well as from the convict’s own clothing recovered from a sugarcane field and mango orchard.

Though acknowledging the gravity and depravity of the offence, the High Court found that the case did not meet the “rarest of rare” threshold required for death penalty.

The Bench reiterated that life imprisonment is the rule and death is an exception, and that the possibility of reform and the convict’s socio-economic background must be considered. The appeal was partly allowed, the reference for confirmation of death sentence was answered in the negative, and the case property was ordered to be dealt with per trial court directions.

Case Title: Rajaram @ Raj Kumar v. State of MP & Ors.