Legal Services India - Law Articles is a Treasure House of Legal Knowledge and information, the law resources is an ever growing database of authentic legal information.

» Home
Monday, November 25, 2024

Gujarat HC Confirms Death Sentence To Man Accused of Rape And Murder of 3.5 Year Old Girl

Posted in: Criminal Law
Fri, Jan 3, 20, 18:07, 5 Years ago
star star star star star
5 out of 5 with 1 ratings
comments: 0 - hits: 5655
ghastly crime than rape followed by murder of 3.5 year old girl. Yet how many times do we listen that such rapists cum killers are hanged in India

Nothing on earth can be more cowardly, more dastardly and more ghastly crime than rape followed by murder of 3.5 year old girl. Yet how many times do we listen that such rapists cum killers are hanged in India? Our legal and criminal justice system is so excruciatingly slow that it is the worst form of injustice and yet we see that it is repeatedly justified in the name of due process of law..

What is worse is that such rapists cum killers or gang rapists cum gang killers enjoy first review petition, then curative petition and then finally mercy petitions and many decades disappear yet the decision finally of hanging the culprits does not come. In last 40 years I have not heard any gang rapist being hanged and just 3 rapists-cum-killers have been hanged in last 40 years. Should we be proud of it?

Why can't review petition, curative petition, mercy petition be disposed of within a definite time frame? Who are the legal giants in Supreme Court and in legal profession who don't want this to happen? Who are the law makers in Parliament who don't want this to happen? Should a small coterie of vested elements be allowed to hold the whole criminal justice system of our nation to ransom?

Just High Court or Supreme Court awarding death penalty will not send a loud and strong message to all rapists cum killers that they will not be spared. It is when they are actually hanged that the right message will percolate down the masses that no one can take law for granted in India. Why can't our law be amended in this direction accordingly? Why can't mandatory death penalty be inserted within a fixed time frame?

Why can't the .discretion bomb. in the form of .may. be totally removed from IPC in Sections pertaining to rape to award mandatory death penalty especially for gang rape and rape of minors as was underscored also by none other than the President of India – Ram Nath Kovind? Why are our law makers totally insensitive on this count? Why some law makers inspite of facing rape charges are allowed to continue as MP and MLAs? Why should they not be debarred till they are finally exonerated? Why no strict parameters are framed for them even though for becoming a Judge or IAS or any other government service there are similar strict parameters? Our law makers need to work upon it now as it is high time.

None other than the Supreme Court itself had itself said in an order recently on December 18, 2018 that it is .time to take stock. if the Nirbhaya case is the best the country's law enforcement and judiciary could do to bring the guilty to justice for crimes committed against women. A Bench led by CJI Sharad A Bobde had said that there was no let down in the atrocities against women. The latest data from National Crime Records Bureau shows 32,559 rape cases were registered in 2017 alone. In the 18-page order, the Apex Court said that the rising crime graph was despite sweeping amendments made to criminal law, especially anti-rape laws, in 2013 and 2018. It acknowledged that, .Delay in recent times has created agitation, anxiety and unrest in the minds of the people..

Needless to say, the Bench of Apex Court also comprising of Justice BR Gavai and Justice Surya Kant further observed that, .The Nirbhaya case is not an isolated case where it has taken so long to reach a finality. In fact, it is said that it has been one of the cases where agencies have acted swiftly taking into account the public outrage...We are, therefore, of the view that it is necessary to take stock of the implementations of provisions of criminal law, including amendments relating to rape cases and other sexual offences.. It is good to see that even the top court now felt it necessary to take stock of the rapid increase in cases of crime against women and girl child.

Coming back to this latest case, the Gujarat High Court has in Anil Surendra Singh Yadav Vs State of Gujarat in R/Criminal Appeal No. 1973 of 2019 with R/Criminal Confirmation Case No. 2 of 2019 delivered on December 27, 2019 has very rightly held that such crimes do not only reflect the abusive facet of human conduct but also shock the collective conscience of the society. There has to be zero tolerance for such horrifying crimes where a minor is first raped and then killed. No wonder, the Gujarat High Court too has very rightly confirmed the death sentence awarded to a man accused of rape and murder of a three and a half year girl.

To start with, we see that this latest, landmark and extremely laudable judgment authored by Justice Bela M Trivedi and Justice AC Rao sets the ball rolling by first and foremost pointing out in para 1 that, .Both the proceedings arise out of the self-same judgment and order dated 31.7.2019 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge and Special Judge (POCSO), Surat (hereinafter referred to as .the Special Court) in Special POCSO Case No. 223 of 2018, whereby the Special Court has convicted the appellant-accused for the offence under Sections 302, 363, 366, 376AB, 377 and 201 of IPC and under Sections 3(a), 4, 5(a), 5(r) and 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (hereinafter referred to as .the POCSO Act.), and has sentenced him to death penalty for the offence under Sections 302, 376AB of IPC and has awarded different punishments of different durations and directed to make payment of fine for the said offences.

The Special Court has acquitted the accused for the offences under the Atrocities Act. The Special Court has not imposed separate punishment for the offence under Sections 3, 4, 5(a), 5(r) and 6 in view of Section 42 of POCSO Act. The appellant-accused has preferred the appeal under Section 374 of Cr.P.C., against the said judgment and order of the conviction and sentence, which has been registered as Criminal Appeal No. 1973 of 2019, whereas the Special Court has submitted the proceedings to the High Court for confirmation of sentence of death penalty imposed by it in view of Section 366 and Section 368 of Cr.P.C., which has been registered as Confirmation Case No. 2 of 2019..

To recapitulate, the case of the prosecution is then described in detail in para 2 wherein it is stated that, .The case as unfolded by the prosecution before the Special Court was that the appellant/accused was residing in a room situated on the ground floor of the house owned by one Shyam Narayan Pandey, situated on the plot No. 44 at Someshwar Work Society, Surat, and the complainant was staying along with his family on the 1st floor of the said house as the tenant. The appellant on 14.10.2018 between 20.00 to 20.30 hours kidnapped the minor daughter (hereinafter referred to as .the victim.) aged about 3 years 6 months of the complainant Narayan Uttam Umale, who belonged to the Scheduled Caste. The appellant thereafter took the victim to his room and committed rape on her and killed her by throttling.

The appellant thereafter with the intention to destroy the evidence put the body of the victim in a gunny bag in his room. He thereafter locked his room from outside and fled away. The complainant fervently searched his daughter in the society, but she was not found and therefore, he lodged a complaint at Limbayat Police Station, Surat on 15.10.2018 at about 1.15 hours, which was registered as CR-I No. 209 of 2018 at the said police station.

The Investigating Officer thereafter made inquiry and search at the said society. Since the room of the accused was found locked, he broke open the lock of the said room in presence of the panch witnesses, from where the corpse of the victim was found in a gunny bag in a decayed and decomposed condition. The complaint thereafter was registered for the offences under Sections 302, 363, 366, 376AB, 377 and 201 of IPC and under Sections 3(A), 4, 5(a), 5(r) and 6 of the POCSO Act and under Section 3(2) (5), Section (3)(2) (5-A) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocity) Act (hereinafter referred to as .the Atrocity Act.). The case was investigated by the Investigating Officers at Surat as well as at the native place of the accused at Bihar. After collecting sufficient evidence against the accused, the charge-sheet was filed by the ACP Mr. Parmar before the Special Court, which was registered as Special POCSO Case No. 223 of 2018..

To put it succinctly, it is then very rightly held in para 51 after analyzing the whole case that, .In the instant case, if the Court has to draw a balance-sheet of the aggravating circumstances and mitigating circumstances to strike a just balance as propounded by the Supreme Court, the Court is of the opinion that the scale of justice tilts against the appellant/accused. The aggravating circumstances proved beyond reasonable doubt like the acts of the accused in kidnapping a young girl of 3 ½ years, committing rape on her in her absolutely helpless and unprotected condition, and then murdering her in a brutal manner by strangulating her and then putting her in a gunny bag, fleeing away to his native place at Bihar, leaving the dead body in the locked house to decay and decompose, with no repentance or remorse after the commission of crime overweigh the mitigating circumstances like no criminal antecedents of the accused or no evidence to suggest that he cannot be reformed.

The plea that the case being based on circumstantial evidence be treated as a mitigating circumstance is also unsustainable, when the Court has found that the prosecution by it is unimpeachable, trustworthy, cogent and credible evidence has proved the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt..

Most significantly, it is then further most rightly held in para 52 that, .The abhorrent and atrocious nature of crime committed by the appellant/accused in diabolical manner, on the defenseless unprotected girl of 3 ½ years, without any remorse, has left the Court with no option but to consider the case as the .rarest of rare case. for awarding the punishment of death penalty. Such crimes do not only reflect the abusive facet of human conduct but also shock collective conscience of the society. The latest legislative wisdom shown by the legislature by amending Section 6 of the POCSO Act and by incorporating the punishment of death penalty for the offence of .aggravated penetrative sexual assault. on the child below 12 years reinforces the desirability of the capital punishment for the heinous crimes.

Of course, the said amendment has been carried out recently and could not be made applicable to the present case, as the offence was committed prior to the amendment. Nonetheless, considering the rising crime rate particularly of the heinous nature of crimes against the young girls, and in response to the society's cry for justice against the criminals and to have deterrence in the society, the culpability of the appellant/accused deserves to be awarded extreme penalty. The Court, therefore, is of the opinion that the death penalty awarded to the accused by the Special Court deserves to be confirmed..

As a consequence, what follows finally is stated in para 53 that, .In that view of the matter the judgment and order dated 31.7.2019 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge and Special Judge (POCSO), Surat in Special POCSO Case No. 223 of 2018 of conviction for the offence under Section 363, 376AB, 377, 302 and 201 of IPC and under Section 3(a), 4, 5® and 6 of the POCSO Act, and of the sentence of death penalty for the offence under Section 302 and 376AB of IPC is confirmed. The other punishments imposed by the Special Court for the other offences are also confirmed. The appeal being Criminal Appeal No. 1973 of 2019 stands dismissed. The Confirmation Case No. 2 of 2019 stands disposed of accordingly..

It is high time and now our law makers must wake up from their deepest slumber and do the dire needful to check the growing incidents of rape of minors followed by brutal murder. The .rarest of rare. doctrine must be kicked out in such cases of ghastly crimes against minor girls. There should be no .may. and there should be no .or..

Only and only death penalty for not just rape cum murder of minors but also for rape of minors. Nothing else. All .discretion bombs. in IPC must be defused right now if the alarming rise in crimes against women have to be checked and their cases must be decided at the earliest and there should ideally be no mercy or review or curative petition for those involved in the ghastly crime and at the most if they are not abolished then they must be decided within the shortest possible term.

Only then will death penalty serve as a strong and potent deterrent for others. We rarely see death by hanging of rapists in our country and this is the real reason why rapists feel most emboldened and especially when they note that in about 40 years just one poor Dhananjoy Chatterjee is hanged on circumstantial evidence alone and as senior Supreme Court advocate Colin Gonsalves pointed out that his petition was drafted by prisoners of Tihar jail which was nothing but the biggest .miscarriage of justice..

Why other rapists cum murderers and gang rapists cum murderers not hanged even when there is direct evidence against them? Supreme Court must now ensure that they too are hanged because if this does not happen even now people will talk more and more loudly that .Law favours the rich and influential rapists cum murderers and even Supreme Court does nothing on this score. which should never be the case and will be the biggest national tragedy as people will lose faith in the criminal justice system of our nation. Can we really afford this?

Sanjeev Sirohi, Advocate,
s/o Col BPS Sirohi, A 82, Defence Enclave,
Sardhana Road, Kankerkhera, Meerut – 250001, Uttar Pradesh.

Comments

There are no comments for this article.
Only authorized users can leave comments. Please sign in first, or register a free account.
Share
Sponsor
About Author
Sanjeev Sirohi Advocate
Member since Apr 20, 2018
Location: Meerut, UP
Following
User not following anyone yet.
You might also like
The general principle, is that a FIR cannot be depended upon a substantive piece of evidence.The article discusses the general priciple, along with exceptions to it.
Victim plays an important role in the criminal justice system but his/her welfare is not given due regard by the state instrumentality. Thus, the role of High Courts or the Supreme Court in our country in affirming and establishing their rights is dwelt in this article.
Can anybody really know what is going inside the heads of criminal lawyers? I mean, yes, we can pick bits of their intelligence during courtroom trials and through the legal documents that they draft.
Terrorism and organized crimes are interrelated in myriad forms. Infact in many illustration terrorism and organized crimes have converged and mutated.
Right to a copy of police report and other documents As per section 207 of CrPC, accused has the right to be furnished with the following in case the proceeding has been initiated on a police report:
In terms of Section 2 of the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993 hereafter referred to as 'the Act'), "human rights" means the rights relating to life, liberty, equality and dignity of the individual guaranteed under the Constitution
The Oxford dictionary defines police as an official organization whose job is to make people obey the law and to prevent and solve crime
the Supreme Court let off three gang rapists after they claimed a ‘compromise formula’ with the victim and agreed to pay her a fine of Rs 50,000 each for their offence.
benefit those prisoners who are kept in solitary confinement, the Uttarakhand High Court delivered a landmark judgment in the case of State of Uttarakhand v 1. Mehtab s/o Tahir Hassan 2. Sushil @Bhura s/o Gulab Singh Criminal Reference No. 1 of 2014 on April 27, 2018
this article helps you knowing how to become a criminal lawyer
helps you to know adultery and its types
In the landmark case of Manoj Singh Pawar v State of Uttarakhand & others Writ Petition (PIL) No. 156 of 2016 which was delivered on June 18, 2018, the Uttarakhand High Court issued a slew of landmark directions
Scope and ambit of Section 6 of Indian Evidence Act,1872
Victims of Crime Can Seek Cancellation of Bail: MP HC in Mahesh Pahade vs State of MP
State of Orissa v Mahimananda Mishra said clearly and convincingly that the court must not go deep into merits of the matter while considering an application for bail and all that needs to be established from the record is the existence of a prima facie case against the accused.
Yashwant v Maharashtra while the conviction of some police officers involved in a custodial torture which led to the death of a man was upheld, the Apex Court underscored on the need to develop and recognize the concept of democratic policing wherein crime control is not the only end, but the means to achieve this order is also equally important.
20 more people guilty of killing a 60-year-old Dalit man and his physically-challenged daughter. Upheld acquittals of 21 other accused, holding that there was insufficient evidence to establish their guilt. So it was but natural that they had to be acquitted
No person accused of an offence punishable for offences involving commercial quantity shall be released on bail or on his own bond unless
Accident under section 80 under the Indian Penal Code falls under the chapter of general exceptions. This article was made with the objective of keeping in mind the students of law who are nowadays in dire need of material which simplify the law than complicating it.
Nishan Singh v State of Punjab. Has ordered one Nishan Singh Brar, convicted of abduction and rape of a minor victim girl, and his mother Navjot Kaur to pay Rs 90 lakh towards compensation.
Rajesh Sharma v State of UP to regulate the purported gross misuse of Section 498A IPC have been modified just recently in a latest judgment titled Social Action Forum Manav for Manav Adhikar and another v Union of India Ministry of Law and Justice and others.
Kodungallur Film Society vs. Union of India has issued comprehensive guidelines to control vandalism by protesting mobs. Vandalism is vandalism and it cannot be justified under any circumstances. Those who indulge in it and those who instigate it must all be held clearly accountable and made to pay for what they have done most shamefully.
Ram Lal vs. State of Himachal Pradesh If the court is satisfied that if the confession is voluntary, the conviction can be based upon the same. Rule of prudence does not require that each and every circumstance mentioned in the confession must be separately and independently corroborated. Absolutely right There can be no denying it
Joseph Shine case struck down the law of adultery under Section 497. It declared that adultery can be a ground for civil issues including dissolution of marriages but it cannot be a criminal offence. It invalidated the Section 497 of IPC as a violation of Articles 14 and 15 and under Article 21 of the Constitution
Mallikarjun Kodagali (Dead) represented through Legal Representatives v/s Karnataka, Had no hesitation to concede right from the start while underscoring the rights of victims of crime that, The rights of victims of crime is a subject that has, unfortunately, only drawn sporadic attention of Parliament, the judiciary and civil society.
State of Kerala v Rasheed observed that while deciding an application to defer cross examination under Section 231(2) of the Cr.P.C. a balance must be struck between the rights of the accused, and the prerogative of the prosecution to lead evidence. The Apex Court in this landmark judgment also listed out practical guidelines.
Reena Hazarika v State of Assam that a solemn duty is cast on the court in the dispensation of justice to adequately consider the defence of the accused taken under Section 313 CrPC and to either accept or reject the same for reasons specified in writing.
Zulfikar Nasir & Ors v UP has set aside the trial court judgment that had acquitted 16 Provincial Armed Constabulary (PAC) officials in the 1987 Hashimpur mass murder case. The Delhi High Court has convicted all the accused and sentenced them to life imprisonment.
In Babasaheb Maruti Kamble v Maharashtra it was held that the Special Leave Petitions filed in those cases where death sentence is awarded by the courts below, should not be dismissed without giving reasons, at least qua death sentence.
Shambhir & Ors v State upholding the conviction and punishment of over 80 rioters has brought some solace to all those affected people who lost their near and dear ones in the ghastly 1984 anti-Sikh riots which brought disrepute to our country and alienated many Sikhs from the national mainstream
Naman Singh alias Naman Pratap Singh and another vs. UP, Supreme Court held a reading of the FIR reveals that the police has registered the F.I.R on directions of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate which was clearly impermissible in the law.
It has been a long and gruelling wait of 34 long years for the survivors of 1984 anti-Sikh riots to finally see one big leader Sajjan Kumar being sentenced to life term by Delhi High Court
Rajendra Pralhadrao Wasnik v State of Maharashtra held that criminals are also entitled to life of dignity and probability of reformation/rehabilitation to be seriously and earnestly considered before awarding death sentence. It will help us better understand and appreciate the intricacies of law.
Sukhlal v The State of Madhya Pradesh 'life imprisonment is the rule and death penalty is the exception' has laid down clearly that even when a crime is heinous or brutal, it may not still fall under the rarest of rare category.
Deepak v State of Madhya Pradesh in which has served to clarify the entire legal position under Section 319 CrPC, upheld a trial court order under Section 319 of the CrPc summoning accused who were in the past discharged by it ignoring the supplementary charge sheet against them.
It has to be said right at the outset that in a major reprieve for all the political leaders accused of being involved in the Sohrabuddin fake encounter case, in CBI, Mumbai vs Dahyaji Goharji Vanzara
Devi Lal v State of Rajasthan the Supreme Court has dispelled all misconceived notions about suspicion and reiterated that,
Madhya Pradesh v Kalyan Singh has finally set all doubts to rest on the nagging question of whether offences under Section 307 of IPC can be quashed on the basis of settlement between parties.
Dr Dhruvaram Murlidhar Sonar v Maharashtra made it amply clear that if a person had not made the promise to marry with the sole intention to seduce a woman to indulge in sexual acts, such an act would not amount to rape.
Rajesh v State of Haryana conviction under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code (Abetment of Suicide) is not sustainable on the allegation of harassment without there being any positive action proximate to the time of occurrence on the part of the accused, which led or compelled the person to commit suicide.
Nand Kishore v Madhya Pradesh has commuted to life imprisonment the death sentence which was earlier confirmed by the Madhya Pradesh High Court of a convicted for the rape and murder of an eight-year-old girl.
Raju Jagdish Paswan v. Maharashtra has commuted the death penalty of a man accused of rape and murder of a nine year old girl and sentenced him to 30 years imprisonment without remission.
Swapan Kumar Chatterjee v CBI permitting the application filed by the prosecution for summoning a hand writing expert in a corruption case of which the trial had started in 1985. On expected lines, the Bench accordingly delivered its significant judgment thus laying down the correct proposition of law to be followed always in such cases
Sukhpal Singh v Punjab that the inability of the prosecution to establish motive in a case of circumstantial evidence is not always fatal to the prosecution case. Importance of motive in determining the culpability of the accused but refused to acknowledge it as the sole criteria for not convicting the accused in the absence of motive.
Gagan Kumar v Punjab it is a mandatory legal requirement for Magistrate to specify whether sentences awarded to an accused convicted for two or more offences, would run concurrently or consecutively.
Dnyaneshwar Suresh Borkar v Maharashtra Even poem can help save a death convict from gallows. The Apex Court has in this latest, landmark and laudable judgment commuted the death penalty of a kidnap cum murder convict who was just 22 years of age at the time of occurrence
Himachal Pradesh v Vijay Kumar Supreme court held about acid attack crime that a crime of this nature does not deserve any kind of clemency.
Death Sentence Can Be Imposed Only When Life Imprisonment Appears To Be An Altogether Inappropriate Punishment: SC
S. Sreesanth v. The Board of Control For Cricket In India the Supreme Court set aside a life ban imposed on former Indian cricketer S Sreesanth in connection with the 2013 IPL spot-fixing scandal and asked the BCCI Disciplinary Committee to take a fresh call on the quantum of his punishment under the Anti-Corruption Code.
Adding Additional Accused To Invoke Section 319 CrPC Stronger Evidence Than Mere Probability of Complicity of A Person Required: SC stated in Sugreev Kumar v. State of Punjab
Top