MP High Court Commutes Death Sentence of 20-Yr-Old Tribal Man Convicted Of Raping 4-Yr-Old, Says ‘No Brutality’

The Court acknowledged the “barbaric” nature of the act but found that it did not rise to the level of “brutality” necessary to warrant capital punishment.

The Division Bench of Justice Vivek Agarwal and Justice Devnarayan Mishra held that while the convict’s actions were horrifying, they were not executed with a degree of cruelty or depravity that would justify the death penalty.

"In this case, 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,” the Court observed, distinguishing between the two concepts while citing Supreme Court precedents.

Background of the Case

The convict, a 20-year-old from a Scheduled Tribe, was sentenced to death by a trial court for abducting and raping a 4-year-old girl and leaving her for dead in a mango orchard. The trial court had noted that the victim suffered permanent disability as a result of the assault.

The incident occurred after the convict allegedly entered the complainant's hut under the pretext of requesting a cot and later abducted the minor victim from a nearby house during the night. He was later arrested and charged under Sections 450, 363, 376(a), 376AB, 307, and 201 of the IPC and Sections 5 and 6 of the POCSO Act.

Defence Arguments

Advocate Samar Singh Rajpoot, appearing for the Appellant, argued that the case rested entirely on circumstantial evidence, with no eyewitness testimony or conclusive proof linking the convict to the crime. He contended that the post-mortem report did not conclusively support the trial court’s finding of permanent disability and that the evidence had likely been fabricated post-arrest.

He further urged the Court to consider mitigating factors including the convict’s age, clean record, illiteracy, tribal background, and the fact that he had been working in a roadside eatery after leaving home at a young age.

State’s Response

Opposing the appeal, Deputy Advocate General Yash Soni argued that the gravity of the offence, committed against a 4-year-old and followed by the child being left to die, warranted no leniency. He asserted that the prosecution had proved the case beyond reasonable doubt.

High Court’s Observations

The Court rejected the defence argument that the child had suffered permanent disability, noting that the only medical testimony, by Dr. Rakesh Shukla, did not provide clear evidence or specify the nature or extent of injury that could establish lifelong disability.

However, it upheld the conviction under all relevant sections, including aggravated rape under the POCSO Act, while commuting the sentence on the ground that the act, though “barbaric,” did not involve "brutality" in the legal sense established by the Supreme Court in Manoharan v. State, Bhaggi v. State of MP, and Dhananjoy Chatterjee v. State of West Bengal.

“There is no report that he has previously committed any such type of offence... He is not properly educated,” the Court noted.

Final Sentence

The High Court affirmed the convictions but converted the death penalty to 25 years of rigorous imprisonment without remission, along with a fine of Rs.10,000 under Section 6 of the POCSO Act. In default of payment, the convict will undergo an additional year of rigorous imprisonment.