No Criminal Antecedents: Gujarat High Court Commutes Death Sentence Of Man In 6-Yr-Old Minor Girl’s Rape Case

The Gujarat High Court has commuted the death sentence of a man who was convicted for raping a 6-year-old minor girl in the year 2021.

A Criminal Confirmation Case was filed seeking confirmation of death sentence awarded to the accused by the Special Court.

A Division Bench comprising Justice Ilesh J. Vora and Justice R.T. Vachhani observed, “Furthermore, the jail record also shows that convict is not involved in any offence; except the present offence and therefore the test to be applied for while awarding death penalty in such heinous offence as discussed herein above after referring to the catena of decisions of the Hon’ble Apex Court is to observe that there is no criminal antecedents; convict is having good behaviour in prison and there would be chances of reformation. In view of the jail report, no such antecedents are reported and conduct of the convict in the jail is reported to be good; however learned Special Court has not undertaken any such exercise to verify the aspect leading towards reformative measures.”

The Bench reiterated that the death sentence is to be awarded only in exceptional cases as it is obligatory on the part of the Court concerned to give a finding on the aspect of reformation and the possibility that the convict will become a useful member to the society in case he will be given a chance to do so.

APP Ronak Raval appeared for the Appellant/State, while Advocate P.V. Patadiya appeared for the Respondent/Accused.

Factual Background

In March 2021, after preparing food and giving it to her children, the Complainant (victim’s mother) left home in the morning for the work of picking tobacco leaves in the field and her three children were playing near house as there was a wedding nearby. When the Complainant returned home in the evening, at that time, her daughter (victim) was playing in the courtyard. Upon seeing her, her daughter came to her crying and her leggings and inner clothes were found wet and she continued crying and was trembling, as also unable to speak anything. The Complainant therefore checked bathroom and found her daughter's leggings lying in wet condition, so also the top was lying in wet condition having bloodstains. Thus, she removed the victim’s leggings and upon checking, she found that blood was coming from her daughter's genital area and she calmly reassured her daughter and asked her, to which her daughter told about the incident.

The victim stated that when she was playing “catch and run” under the neem tree in the courtyard; at that time, the Respondent-accused who was sleeping on a cot in front of his house had called her by saying that he will give her some tamarind (aambli). When she went near his cot, he said that the tamarind is inside the house and she was asked to come inside the house. It was alleged that he grabbed her and took her to the back area inside his house, behind the partition and then pushed her on the floor, took off the leggings she had worn and thereafter pressed her mouth with one hand and climbed on her and did something wrong act with her. After some time, the blood started coming out of her urinating area and started burning. Thereafter, he allegedly gave her ten rupees by saying that if she tells this to anyone, he will do this again and she was therefore scared. Resultantly, a complaint was registered. The accused was convicted under Sections 363 and 376(AB) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC), Sections 5 (M) read with Section 6 of the Protection of Children of Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POSCO Act), and was awarded capital punishment. Hence, the case was before the High Court.

Reasoning

The High Court in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, said, “In view of the proposition and law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court as discussed in the foregoing paragraphs on the aspect of category of the “rarest of rare case” whereby, it has been held that if the convict would be a menace and threat to the harmonious and peaceful coexistence of the society, it would come under the category of rarest of rare case; irrespective of the fact that crime may be a heinous or brutal in nature. Thus, keeping in mind the aforesaid legal aspect equating with the facts of the case on hand, undoubtedly the sentencing part is a difficult one and requires to undertake such exercise by the Court concerned having jurisdiction to award the sentence; where the option is between a life sentence and a death sentence and the Court concerned finds it difficulty in awarding the sentence, then the appropriate recourse would be to impose the lesser sentence.”

The Court noted that the concerned Court has to consider the gravity of extreme culpability, the mitigating circumstances, the social economic condition of the offender equating the way and the circumstances in which the crime has been committed; so also the victimisation of the person involved in the crime and the adverse societal impact of the crime in question.

“All these aspects require to be examined by calling for appropriate report/s and after recording such subjective satisfaction that there appears such extreme and exceptional circumstances leaving no room for the Court except to impose the death penalty”, it added.

The Court remarked that the Special Court awarded the death penalty; however while awarding the sentence of death penalty has not taken into consideration the several factors 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 from the material which may constrain to affirm the conclusion arrived at by the Special Court.

“Thus, in such circumstance, the proposition laid down by the Apex Court does warrant to be considered while sentencing which in case requires to be altered to the punishment of imprisonment of life till the reminder of the life. … he death penalty / capital punishment imposed upon the convict for the offence punishable under Sections Section 376 (AB) of the Indian Penal Code and Section 5 (M) read with Section 6 of the Protection of Children of Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (for short the POCSO Act) is commuted to the imprisonment of life which shall mean the imprisonment for reminder of life. Rest of the conviction and sentence as awarded by the learned Sessions Court shall remain unaltered”, it held and concluded.

Accordingly, the High Court disposed of the Criminal Appeal and commuted the death sentence to the imprisonment of life.

Cause Title- State of Gujarat v. Jayantibhai @ Langho Chimanbhai Solanki (Neutral Citation: 2025:GUJHC:71171-DB)

Click here to read/download the Judgment