"Every saint has a past, every sinner has a future:" Supreme Court commutes death sentence of man who raped, killed minor girl

The death sentence handed down to man convicted for killing a 4-year-old girl after raping her, was commuted by the Supreme Court to life imprisonment [Mohd. Firoz v. State of Madhya Pradesh]..A bench headed by Justice UU Lalit while doing so observed that the only difference between a saint and a sinner is that every saint has a past and every sinner has a future.In the present matter, the Court noted that the case did not fall within 'rarest of rare' category. The Court observed that in the recent case of Shatrughna Baban Meshram vs. State of Maharashtra, considering the fact that the accused had not consciously caused any injury with an intent to extinguish the life of the victim, the apex court had commuted the sentence of death penalty to the life imprisonment."The facts and circumstances of the case on hand are similar to the case of Shatrughna Baban Meshram with one distinction in that, Section 376A of IPC being applicable in the instant case Considering the above, we, while affirming the view taken by the courts below with regard to the conviction of the appellant for the offences charged against him, deem it proper to commute, and accordingly commute the sentence of death for the sentence of imprisonment for life, for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC," the Court ordered.The separate sentence of life imprisonment imposed on the convict by the trial court for the offence of rape was reduced by the Supreme Court to rigorous imprisonment for 20 years. Invoking Oscar Wilde, the bench also comprising Justices S Ravindra Bhatt and Bela Trivedi said, "The only difference between the saint and the sinner is that every saint has a past and every sinner has a future. One of the basic principles of restorative justice as developed by this Court over the years, also is to give an opportunity to the offender to repair the damage caused, and to become a socially useful individual, when he is released from the jail.......The maximum punishment prescribed may not always be the determinative factor for repairing the crippled psyche of the offender. Hence, while balancing the scales of retributive justice and restorative justice, we deem it appropriate to impose upon the appellant-accused, the sentence of imprisonment for a period of twenty years instead of imprisonment for the remainder of his natural life for the offence under section 376A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).".According to the prosecution case, the accused, a labourer at Jhabua Power Plant, had been to the victim's house seeking temporary accommodation. However, the victim's mother refused to accommodate him and asked him to leave. He, however, sat in their courtyard for some time and took the victim and her elder brother outside the house, purchased some bananas and gave it to the victim's brother. He then took the victim to a secluded place and committed rape on her and subsequently killed her.The accused was handed death sentence by a sessions court in Seoni and a co-accused was sentenced to a jail term for kidnapping the victim.The death sentence was confirmed by the Madhya Pradesh High Court at Jabalpur by an order passed on July 15, 2014. The same was challenged by the convict before the top court.The bench led by Justice Lalit noted that the prosecution has successfully established it's case against the accused and especially the "last seen theory" which was confirmed by the victim's mother, her brother and the fruit vendor, who testified to have seen the accused taking the victim along with him.However, the accused before the top court claimed that he wasn't given a fair opportunity by the High Court and also the sessions court while conducting the trial..On this, the bench said that the top court has time and again emphasised the right to a fair trial by the courts, in the letter and spirit of the right to life and personal liberty flowing from the various guarantees enshrined in the Constitution of India."We may hasten to add at this stage that right to fair and speedy trial applies as much to the victim as the accused. Right to get speedy justice applies to the victim as well. Hence, considering the gravity and seriousness of the crime, if the trial is expedited by the Court, it could not to be said that such trial was not fair to the accused. Though, it is true that the 'Equality, Justice and Liberty' is the trinity of fair trial recognised in the administration of justice, it is equally true that such concept of fair trial entails triangulation of interest of the accused, the victim and the society at large. In the overzealous approach to protect the rights of the accused, the rights of the victim who is the most aggrieved should not be either undermined or neglected," the Court said.The bench while upholding the conviction but commuting the death sentence into life noted that this wasn't a "rarest of rare case.""Once again one of the most barbaric and ugly human faces has surfaced. A tiny bud like girl was smothered by the appellant before she could blossom in this world. The monstrous acts of the appellant suffocated the victim to such an extent that she had no option but to leave this world. Once again, all the Constitutional guarantees have failed to protect the victim from the clutches of the demonizing acts of the appellant. In the opinion of the Court, any sympathy shown to the appellant would lead to miscarriage of justice. However, it has been brought to the notice of this Court that in series of judgments, this Court has not treated such case as the rarest of rare case," stated the order authored by Justice Trivedi. .[Read Judgment]