Madhya Pradesh High Court Commutes Death Sentence to Man Convicted of Rape and Murder of Minor

In a recent order, the Madhya Pradesh High Court commuted the death sentence of a man convicted of rape and murder of a minor girl. The court commuted the defendant’s sentence from death penalty to life imprisonment.

In doing so, the partition bench includes: Judge Vivek Agarwal And Justice Devnarayan Mishra mentioned Mohinder Singh Vs. Punjab Province (2013) and concluded that the Supreme Court had not taken into account the fact that the appellant had no criminal history.

The division bench observed, “…We have no hesitation in continuing his sentence under Articles 302, 376(ab), 377, 201, 363, 366 of the TMK, but the social interest may be balanced by ensuring that the appellant remains in custody for the remaining period. According to Article 5(m) of the Law on the Protection of Children from Sexual Offenses, the offense is punishable by imprisonment for life instead of 14, 20 or 30 years, with a penalty of not less than 20 years, which can be punished with imprisonment for the remainder of the person’s natural life. It is a punishment that can mean

The appellant/accused was convicted by the Trial Court under Sections 377, 201, 363, 366 of the IPC. Appellant was also convicted and sentenced to death under Section 302 and Section 376(ab). Therefore, regarding the imposition of death penalty, the matter was referred to the High Court by the Court of First Instance and the accused also preferred an appeal before the High Court under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. It was decided to convict and sentence the case on the grounds that it was based on circumstantial evidence, but there was no witness/evidence that the prosecutor was last seen with the defendant-appellant.

Regarding whether the death penalty is appropriate in the current case, the court referred to the decision of the Supreme Court dated 13.12.2015. Mohinder Singh (above) It was held here that the High Court must first be satisfied that the conviction was correct and then consider what sentence should be imposed, independently of the view expressed by the Sessions Judge. The judgment also stated that the confirmation of death penalty should not be based solely on precedents or aggravating facts of any other case, but the Supreme Court should come to an independent conclusion after considering all aspects of the trial. Therefore, in the present case, the court first proceeded to consider whether the conviction given by the Supreme Court was correct.

According to the facts of the case, the victim went to buy gutka for his father and then got lost. His family later filed a missing person report. The next morning, the victim’s lifeless body was found in a nearby sewer. A medical examination later confirmed that the minor victim had been raped. Few prosecution witnesses expressed doubts about the appellant-accused and the SHO conducted a search of the accused’s cabin from which a cache of evidence was recovered. The evidence against the defendant was confirmed through DNA profiling and examination of exhibits. The defendant’s alibi claim was also rejected by the court due to the contradictory circumstantial evidence. Thus, the High Court sustained the conviction against the appellant-accused under Sections 302, 376(ab), 377, 201, 363, 366 IPC.

The court applied again Mohinder Singh (above) observed here“The ‘rarest of rare’ doctrine limits two aspects and only when both aspects are met can the death penalty be imposed. First, the case clearly falls within the scope of “rare to rare” and second, the alternative option of life imprisonment is unequivocally eliminated. There are different degrees of deterrence, rehabilitation and punishment in life imprisonment. However, the same does not apply to the death penalty. It is unique in its absolute rejection of the prisoner’s potential to rehabilitate and reform. It extinguishes life and therefore destroys existence, thus putting an end to everything related to life. This is the biggest difference between the two penalties. Therefore, it is imperative to take the same into consideration before imposing the death penalty. “It has also been held that in order to satisfy the second aspect of the ‘least rare’ doctrine, the court must present clear evidence as to why the convict is not eligible for any plan of correction and rehabilitation.”

Therefore, the court noted that the appellant had no criminal record and, according to the Prison Director’s report, his behavior was normal. Additionally, the appellant has elderly parents and a wife. The court was therefore of the view that the possibility of reform existed.

The court observed: “We are of the opinion that the circumstances of the case do not require the death penalty to be approved. It just requires maintaining the conviction, but commuting the appellant’s sentence from the death penalty to life imprisonment.”

Thus, the party was allowed to make a criminal objection.

Case Title: Vishnu Bhamore vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, Criminal Appeal No. 6422, 2019

Click Here to Read/Download the Order