Gujarat HC Commutes Death Sentence in 2.5 Year-Old’s Rape and Murder Case, Awards Life Imprisonment Till Natural Life

The Gujarat High Court has commuted the death sentence awarded to a man convicted for the rape and murder of a two-and-a-half-year-old child, holding that while the prosecution had proved the case beyond reasonable doubt and the conviction warranted no interference, the imposition of capital punishment could not be sustained in the absence of a legally compliant sentencing exercise that meaningfully examined mitigating circumstances and the possibility of the convict’s reformation.

The Court reiterated that life imprisonment is the rule and death penalty an exception, and that capital punishment can be imposed only when the alternative option is unquestionably foreclosed.

A division bench of Justice Ilesh J. Vora and Justice R.T. Vachhani answered the death reference by declining to confirm the capital sentence imposed by the Special POCSO Court at Surat and altered the punishment to imprisonment for life for the remainder of the convict’s natural life, while maintaining the conviction and the other sentences awarded for the offences under the Indian Penal Code and the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act.

"...Considering the evidence adduced before the learned Special Court, the learned Special Court awarded the death penalty; however while awarding the sentence of death penalty has not taken into consideration the several factors as deliberated in the foregoing paragraphs with any possibility of reformative measures and therefore in absence of any antecedents, the imposition of death penalty deserves to be interfered with as nothing sort of any such material emerges from the record; nor seems to have been pointed out to us from the material which may constrain us to affirm the conclusion arrived at by the learned Special Court", the Court observed.

The prosecution case was that the accused, who resided in the same building as the victim’s family and was aware that she was a minor, enticed the child on the pretext of giving her chocolate, took her to a secluded bush-covered area behind Pandesara GIDC and subjected her to forcible penetrative sexual assault.

When the child began to cry, he pressed her mouth and nose, causing death by asphyxia.

The trial court had imposed the death penalty for the offences under Sections 302, 376A and 376AB IPC, along with other sentences for kidnapping, abduction and allied offences.

Upon a comprehensive reappreciation of the evidence, the High Court affirmed the findings of guilt.

The Court noted that the prosecution had established a complete chain of circumstances, including CCTV footage showing the accused carrying the child towards the direction of the place of offence, recovery of incriminating articles, medical and forensic evidence, DNA material and the “last seen together” circumstance.

The medical evidence conclusively proved forcible sexual assault and homicidal death due to deliberate smothering. The Court held that the age of the victim, the nature of the injuries and the scientific material on record left no room for doubt that the accused had abducted, raped and murdered the child.

The conviction under Sections 363, 366, 302, 376(2)(j)(l), 376(3), 376A and 376AB IPC and the relevant provisions of the POCSO Act was therefore upheld.

The principal question before the Court was whether the case fell within the “rarest of rare” category warranting confirmation of the death sentence. In this context, the bench undertook an extensive survey of capital sentencing jurisprudence, referring to Bachan Singh, Machhi Singh, Shankar Kisanrao Khade and subsequent decisions, including the post-Manoj framework which mandates that courts must call for and evaluate material relating to the social, psychological and prison background of the convict before imposing capital punishment.

The Court emphasised that a balance sheet of aggravating and mitigating circumstances must be drawn and that death can be awarded only when life imprisonment is an altogether inadequate punishment and the alternative option cannot be conscientiously exercised.

Applying these principles, the High Court found that although the crime was undoubtedly heinous and involved the rape and murder of a helpless child, the record did not demonstrate that the convict was beyond the possibility of reformation or that he would be a continuing menace to society.

The jail record indicated that he had no criminal antecedents apart from the present offence and that his conduct in prison was reported to be good. Crucially, the trial court had not undertaken the mandatory exercise of examining the reformative potential of the convict or evaluating the mitigating material in the manner required by the Supreme Court’s capital sentencing jurisprudence.

The High Court held that the absence of such an exercise vitiated the sentencing process.

The Court observed that modern death penalty jurisprudence places a positive obligation on courts to assess the background of the offender, the possibility of rehabilitation and the impact of incarceration, and that capital punishment cannot be affirmed merely on the basis of the brutality of the crime.

In the present case, no material had been brought on record to show that the convict was incapable of reform or that life imprisonment would be wholly inadequate.

In these circumstances, the “no alternative but death” test was not satisfied.

Holding that the failure to conduct a proper mitigation analysis rendered the capital sentence unsustainable, the Court commuted the death penalty to imprisonment for life for the remainder of the convict’s natural life while maintaining the rest of the conviction and sentences as awarded by the Special Court.

The death reference was accordingly answered and the convict’s appeal was disposed of in these terms.

Case Title: State of Gujarat v. Guddukumar Madhesh Yadav

Bench: Justice Ilesh J. Vora and Justice R.T. Vachhani

Judgment date: 18.02.2026