Brutality not sufficient grounds: Supreme Court commutes death penalty of man in child rape-murder case

The Indian Supreme Court on Wednesday (Jul 15) ruled that the brutality or the gruesome nature of a crime is not sufficient grounds to award a death sentence. The top court was hearing a plea filed by a rape and murder accused of a 10-year-old girl. The man’s death penalty was commuted to life imprisonment without remission. The court held that the brutality of the offence cannot be the sole reason for imposing capital punishment, adding that the convict’s potential for reformation must also be assessed.

A bench of Justices Vikram Nath, Sanjay Karol and Sandeep Mehta upheld the conviction of Jai Prakash for the rape and murder of the minor in 2018 in Dehradun, following which the Uttarakhand High Court awarded him a death sentence.

According to witness testimonies, the appellant invited several children to his hut on July 28, 2018 and gave them Rs 10 each to buy chocolates. While he let other children go, the victim did not return with the rest. She was later found dead in the hut. An FIR was registered at Police Station Sahaspur by her father.

The accused was booked under Sections 376(AB), 377, and 302 of the IPC and Section 5/6 of the POCSO Act. The High Court upheld the conviction and sentence based on the witness testimonies, the body recovered, and DNA evidence.

“We find the witnesses to be inspiring in confidence and the children’s deposition to be in a natural form,” the court noted, as quoted by LawBeat. “There is no infirmity in the chain of seizure or forensic examination. Taking a cumulative view of all circumstances, the prosecution has proven its case beyond reasonable doubt,” it added.

While the court did not interfere with the concurrent findings of conviction by the lower courts, it disagreed with the awarding of the death sentence. The bench observed that while the crime was undeniably grave, the courts below had relied solely on its brutality to award the death sentence.

“No other circumstance came to be discussed in concluding that this case falls under the ‘rarest of rare’ category. Such an approach cannot be sustained,” the court said.

The court also noted that the appellant came from an impoverished background. He did not attend school due to financial conditions and started working at the age of 12. He had good conduct in jail and did not suffer from any psychiatric disorders.

“Taking into account the mitigating circumstances and the threshold under the ‘rarest of rare’ doctrine, we deem it appropriate to award life imprisonment without remission extending to the natural life of the appellant,” the Court concluded.