Supreme Court commutes death sentence of man convicted for rape, murder of 7-year-old

The Supreme Court on Wednesday commuted the death sentence of a man convicted for raping and killing a seven-year-old girl, to life imprisonment [Pappu vs State of UP]..A three-judge bench of Justices AM Khanwilkar, Dinesh Maheshwari and CT Ravikumar passed the judgment on the ground that there is a possibility of reformation since the convict did not have any criminal antecedents and was not a hardened criminal."When the appellant is not shown to be a person having criminal antecedents and is not a hardened criminal, it cannot be said that there is no probability of him being reformed and rehabilitated. His unblemished jail conduct and having a family of wife, children and aged father would also indicate towards the probability of his reformation," the Court said.It would, therefore, be unsafe to treat this case as falling in ‘rarest of rare’ category, the Court added..The Court noted that the accused, who at the time of commission of offence was 35 years old, had indeed lured the seven year old to have lychee fruits. Thereafter, not only did he rape the girl, but he also murdered the girl and dumped her in garbage after having dragged her dead body for over a kilometre..The top court upheld trial court and High Court order convicting the accused under Section 302 of IPC for murder..However the apex court differed with regard to the sentence handed down to the accused.It held that the lower court and High Court orders awarding and confirming death sentence were based on assumptive conclusions. "The impugned orders awarding and confirming death sentence could only be said to be of assumptive conclusions, where it has been assumed that death sentence has to be awarded because of the ghastly crime and its abhorrent nature," the Supreme Court said..The tests and the norms laid down in the relevant decisions commencing from those in Bachan Singh for awarding death penalty, were not properly considered by the courts below, the apex court opined..The Court agreed that heinous nature of crime like that of present one, in brutal rape and murder of a seven-year-old girl child, definitely disclosed aggravating circumstances, particularly when the manner of its commission showed depravity and shocked the conscience..However, the bench highlighted that the appellant had no criminal antecedents, came from a very poor socio-economic background with a family comprising wife, children and aged father. He also has unblemished jail conduct, the Court further noted.."When all these factors are added together and it is also visualised that there is nothing on record to rule out the probability of reformation and rehabilitation of the appellant, in our view, it would be unsafe to treat this case as falling in ‘rarest of rare’ category. Putting it differently, when the appellant is not shown to be a person having criminal antecedents and is not a hardened criminal, it cannot be said that there is no probability of him being reformed and rehabilitated. His unblemished jail conduct and having a family of wife, children and aged father would also indicate towards the probability of his reformation," the judgment said..The top court also stated that the Supreme Court had in its earlier judgments found it justified to have capital punishment on the statute to serve as deterrent."But principles of penology have evolved to balance the other obligations of the society, i.e., of preserving the human life, be it of accused, unless termination thereof is inevitable and is to serve the other societal causes and collective conscience of society," the Court opined..This led to the the development of 'rarest of rare test' by the Supreme Court and its evolution over time. "This has led to the evolution of ‘rarest of rare test’ and then, its appropriate operation with reference to ‘crime test’ and ‘criminal test’. The delicate balance expected of the judicial process has also led to another mid-way approach, in curtailing the rights of remission or premature release while awarding imprisonment for life, particularly when dealing with crimes of heinous nature like the present one," the judgment said..The Court, therefore, commuted the death sentence to life imprisonment and stated that the actual imprisonment will be for 30 years and that the convict shall not be eligible for premature release or remission for 30 years..[Read Judgment]