Read Time: 08 minutes

Synopsis

The Supreme Court has recently commuted a death sentence to a 20-year fixed imprisonment term without remission for a man convicted of raping and setting a minor girl on fire.

While upholding the man’s conviction, court ruled that the convict was not a hardened criminal, who could not be reformed. The possibility of him, if given the chance of being reformed, cannot be ruled out, it said.

Court opined that in the present case the confirmation of death penalty would not be justified.

“However, at the same time we also find that the ordinary sentence of life i.e. 14 years imprisonment with remission would not meet the ends of justice. In our considered view, the present case would fall in the middle path," the bench of Justices B R Gavai, Prashant Kumar Mishra and K V Vishwanathan held.

The bench took into account several factors, including the fact that the convict, Rabbu alias Sarvesh, lost his mother at the young age of 8 and his elder brother by the time he was 10. It also noted that despite having a sister, he was raised solely by his father, a single parent.

Court recorded that the convict came from a socio-economic backward stratum of the society and he was of a tender age of 22 years when the incident occurred.

Though the court agreed with the state counsel's submission that the age of the convict at the time of commission of crime solely could not be taken into consideration, it felt, however, the age of the convict at the time of commission of crime along with other factors could certainly be taken into consideration as to whether the death penalty needed to be commuted or not.

Court also perused psychological assessment and jail behaviour reports which showed there was nothing against the behaviour of the convict.

“His conduct in the prison has been found to be satisfactory. The reports further reveal that though not allotted any work, the appellant is engaging himself in plantation of trees, cleaning the temple and surrounding area”, the court highlighted.

However, court noted that the dying declaration recorded by a naib tehsildar and endorsed by the medical officer formed as reliable and trustworthy, in which the deceased had clearly implicated the convict.

Therefore, the bench found no error in the concurrent orders of the trial judge and the high court convicting the man for the offences punishable under Sections 450, 376(2)(i), 376D, 376A and 302 read with 34 of the IPC and Section 5(g)/6 of the POCSO.

The judgment came in a challenge to a 2019 judgment of Madhya Pradesh High Court's division bench dismissing the man’s appeal against Sagar court's decision convicting him for the offences under Sections 450, 376(2)(i), 376D, 376A and 302 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code, and Section 5(g)/6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offenses Act, 2012 and awarding death penalty under Sections 376A and 302 IPC and life imprisonment under Section 376D of the IPC and rigorous imprisonment for 10 years under Section 450 of the IPC.

Arguing the appeal, the counsel for the convict said that the truthfulness of the dying declarations itself was doubtful, therefore, the conviction could not be based on the said dying declarations. He also alleged that the DNA report pointed out the presence of a third person and also the trial judge also did not consider the balance between the mitigating circumstances and aggravating circumstances while awarding the death penalty.

Against the death penalty, he contended that the present case was not a ‘rarest of the rare’ case, which would justify awarding such punishment.

On the other hand, defending the trial court and the high court's judgments, the state counsel said that merely the convict taking advantage of the circumstances that the deceased was alone in the house had committed the heinous crime and therefore the present case would squarely fit in the category of ‘rarest of the rare’ cases. He submitted that the psychological report would also show that there was no remorse expressed by the convict.

Case Title: Rabbu @ Sarvesh Vs The State of Madhya Pradesh