Allahabad High Court ruling: The Allahabad High Court has upheld the conviction of a man in a rape and murder case involving a minor but commuted his death penalty to life term for want of criminal history and observing there was no evidence to show he had acted with a “premeditated mind”.
A division bench of Justices Rajnish Kumar and Rajeev Singh on November 18 observed though it was a “henious crime of rape” in which a child eventually succumbed to the injuries, the act was “not committed with a pre-meditated mind”.
The bench was acting on the confirmation proceedings of the death penalty filed by the state and the appeal of the convict challenging the trial court’s judgment handing out the capital punishment to him.
Therefore, the court said the “death penalty was liable to be commuted to life imprisonment till the natural life of convict without remission”.
The bench observed neither there was a criminal history of the man nor any evidence was brought on record to prove that the offence was committed with a pre-meditated mind.
“There is no criminal history of the convict and there is no evidence that offence was committed with pre-meditated mind, this Court is of the view that the death penalty is liable to be commuted to life imprisonment till the natural life of convict/appellant without remission,” the court said.
While commuting the trial court’s capital punishment to life imprisonment, the court said, “In a case based on circumstantial evidence, in which, offence is under Section 376 (rape) and Section 302 (murder) of IPC, though the death penalty can be awarded in the ‘rarest of rare’. But normally imprisonment for life without any remission may be awarded, unless death sentence is inevitable.”
Story continues below this ad
The convict was stated to be 27 years of age, being a father of a minor himself at the time of incident.
The bench highlighted that though the trial court considered the circumstances in detail, it was done “without any report of the evaluation from the probation officer, jail administration and psychologist”.
Advocate Rajesh Kumar Dwivedi, representing the convict, argued that his client was framed in this case on account of enmity, stressing that he was not even present at the relevant place and time. He further argued that the FIR did not match with the series of the alleged events and it was lodged with an “inordinate delay”.
Government Advocate Dr V K Singh and additional government advocate Raj Deep Singh, representing the state, said that the offence was “very brutal” and the trial court had “rightly convicted and awarded the death sentence”.
Story continues below this ad
Background:
According to the FIR, the incident dates back to February 16, 2021, when the girl went missing and was later found dead. Investigation revealed that the toddler was in the company of the convict before the incident.
He was convicted and sentenced to death by the trial court for the offences under Section 376 (rape), 364 (kidnapping or abducting in order to murder) and 302 (murder) of the IPC and Section 6 (aggravated penetrative sexual assault) of the Protection of Chidlren from Sexual Offences Act, 2012.
