Brutality Of A Crime Cannot Be The Only Criterion: Supreme Court Commutes Death Sentence Of Man Convicted For Rape & Murder Of 10-Yr-Old Girl

The Court was considering an appeal filed against the judgment of the Uttarakhand High Court affirming the order convicting the appellant under Sections 376, 377, 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Sections 5, 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012.

The 3-Judge Bench of Justice Vikram Nath, Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Sandeep Mehta said, “The Courts below have only commented on the brutality of the crime in question, to hand down the death penalty to the appellant. No other circumstance came to be discussed by the Courts in reaching the conclusion that the case forms part of the “rarest of the rare” category. Such an approach in our view cannot be sustained”,

“The Courts below have failed to make any detailed reference to the aggravating and mitigating circumstances surrounding the appellant. Moreover, the High Court, which was the Reference Court for confirmation of death sentence, though expounded on the requirement of law to consider aggravating and mitigating circumstances, failed to consider any of these circumstances – only dealing with the brutality of the incident”, it added.

Senior Advocate Ranjit Tomas represented the Appellant while AOR Sudarshan Singh Rawat represented the Respondent.

Factual Background

It was alleged that while playing with other children, X, the child of PW1 (father), went missing. On enquiry, from other children present, the father got to know that the appellant took all the children to his hut and gave them money to go to the shop. Eventually, after a few hours of exasperated searching, the victim was found dead underneath empty cement bags in the appellant’s hut. PW1, therefore, lodged an FIR.

The Investigating Officer commenced the investigation. The inquest report was prepared, and the body of X was sent for post-mortem. The cause of death came to be determined as ‘manual throttling by hand causes asphyxia.’ After completion of the investigation, charges were framed against the appellant under Sections 302, 201, 376 and 377 IPC and Section 6 of the POCSO Act. The Trial Court, after careful consideration of the evidence on record, convicted the appellant and the High Court affirmed the same. Aggrieved thereby, the appellant approached the Apex Court.

Reasoning

The Bench noted that the Doctor who conducted the post-mortem of X stated in his deposition that the injuries on the body indicated sexual assault. All injuries were caused before the death. The cause of death was ascertained as strangulation by hand, after the commission of forceful rape. As far as the victim’s age was concerned, the Headmaster of the School, in which she was enrolled for studies, verified that her date of birth was October 20, 2008, which made her 10 years old on the date of the incident.

Referring to the testimonies of the children who were playing with the victim, the Bench said, “Despite being minors, there is nothing on record to disbelieve their testimonies, for we find the witnesses to be inspiring in confidence and the children’s deposition to be in a natural form.” On a perusal of the evidence on record, the Bench observed that it was proven beyond doubt that the appellant was last seen with X inside his hut on the date of the incident, and this was immediately prior to the occurrence of the incident. The children, along with other witnesses, established the presence of the appellant inside the hut where no one else, other than him, was present.

Coming to the DNA evidence of the case, the Bench noted the testimony of the Doctor who conducted the FSL examination. It was found in the examination that the hair found on the dead body of X matched the underwear of the appellant, and both of these matched the DNA sample of the appellant. Taking a cumulative view of all such circumstances, the Bench held that the prosecution has proven its case against the appellant, beyond a reasonable doubt.

Addressing the issue of punishment imposed, i.e. death penalty, the Bench observed that the Courts below had only commented on the brutality of the crime in question, to hand down the death penalty to the appellant. No other circumstance came to be discussed by the Courts. The Bench thus took note of the mitigating circumstances and also noticed that it was mentioned in the psychological report that the appellant could not attend school due to the socio-economic condition of the family and had started working at the age of twelve. He had good relations with other inmates, and he did not suffer from any psychiatric disturbance.

Thus, partly allowing the appeal, the Bench ordered, “In light of the above discussion, taking into account the above mitigating circumstances and the threshold of “rarest of rare” category, we deem it appropriate to award life imprisonment without remission extending to the natural life of the appellant instead of the punishment of the death penalty.”

Cause Title: Jai Prakash v. State of Uttarakhand (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 861)

Appearance

Appellant: Senior Advocate Ranjit Tomas, AOR Minakshi Vij, Advocate Alok Bhat

Respondent: AOR Sudarshan Singh Rawat, Advocate Saakshi Singh Rawat

Click here to read/download Judgment