Read Time: 08 minutes

Synopsis

In reference to its judgment whereby the punishment awarded to a person accused of raping and killing a four-year old girl, was commuted from death sentence to life imprisonment, the Supreme Court has clarified that the accused will have to undergo imprisonment for a period of twenty years instead of life imprisonment for the said offences.

Justice Bela M Trivedi, in the said judgment had quoted Oscar Wilde and said, “The only difference between the saint and the sinner is that every saint has a past and every sinner has a future”.

An application was filed by the accused urging the Supreme Court to pass an order clarifying that the sentence to be served by him is life imprisonment and not life imprisonment for the reminder of natural life.

On October 19, after hearing the accused, Court observed that the applicant had in fact sought a review of the said judgment as regards the sentences imposed by the court for the offences under Sections 376(2)(i) and 376(2)(m) of IPC and Section 5 (i) and 5 (m) read with Section 6 of the POCSO Act.

Senior Advocate B.H. Marlapalle, appearing as an amicus curiae on behalf of the petitioner-accused, told the court that if life imprisonment would mean imprisonment for the remainder of the petitioner’s natural life for offences under the POCSO Act, the very purpose of the court in not imposing the sentence of life imprisonment for the remainder of petitioner’s life for the offence under Section 376(A) of IPC, would be frustrated.

Agreeing with the said submission, Court modified its earlier order to the extent of life imprisonment meaning imprisonment for 20 years.

Notably, the Supreme Court while commuting the death sentence of the rapist, had remarked that,

"One of the basic principles of restorative justice as developed by this Court over the years, also is to give an opportunity to the offender to repair the damage caused, and to become a socially useful individual, when he is released from the jail. The maximum punishment prescribed may not always be the determinative factor for repairing the crippled psyche of the offender."

After the judgment was pronounced, a review petition was filed by the victim girl's mother stating that, "while commuting the death sentence, the impugned judgment seems to have overlooked the cruel, diabolic, brutal, depraved and gruesome nature of the crime committed by accused".

In the review petition, the mother of the 4-year-old child had submitted that the court extended undue sympathy to the accused. It was further submitted that she and her deceased daughter would only get justice when the death penalty awarded to the accused would be restored.

Filed under Article 137 of the Constitution of India, the plea sought a kind review and reconsideration of the judgment and order dated April 19, 2022 whereby a bench of Justices UU Lalit, S Ravindra Bhat and Bela M Trivedi commuted the death sentence awarded to the accused and awarded sentence of imprisonment for a period of 20 years (instead of imprisonment for the remainder of his natural life) for the offence u/s 376A IPC.

The Top Court had also dismissed the mother's review petition holding that it had taken the decision to commute the death penalty after bestowing attention to the relevant factors.

"As the record indicates, even after conclusion of hearing, certain material from the Probation Officer and Director General of Prison, Trained Psychiatrist were also called so that the matter pertaining to sentence to be awarded could be considered. Thus, the commutation of sentence of death to that of life imprisonment was done by the Court after bestowing attention to the relevant factors...", the court order stated.

Case Title: MOHD. FIROZ vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH