‘Act brutal but not committed brutally': HC commutes death penalty in child rape case
The Madhya Pradesh High Court has commuted the death sentence awarded by a trial court to a man convicted of raping a four-year-old minor girl.
A division bench, comprising Justices Vivek Agarwal and Devnarayan Mishra, observed in their order on June 19, 'No doubt that appellant's act was brutal as he has committed rape upon the victim of four years and three months of age and after committing rape also throttled her treating her dead and thrown the victim in such a place where she could not be searched and left the spot but it is also clear that he has not committed brutality.'
According to the prosecution, the convict entered the complainant's hut and requested a cot to sleep on. Later that night, he allegedly opened the gate of a nearby house where the victim and her parents was staying, abducted and raped her. Thereafter, he allegedly left the child in an unconscious state in a mango orchard, believing her to be dead.
The High Court was hearing a criminal appeal filed by the convict against a trial court judgment which found him guilty under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO Act).
The high court acknowledged that the aggravating circumstance of this case was the age of the victim and the convict. The bench stated, 'There are aggravating circumstances that the victim was four years old and the rape was committed upon such a kid and offence was committed in such a way that the private part of the victim was torn and after committing the offence, the victim was thrown in the solitary place treating her that she had died.'
However, the bench also took note of the fact that the convict, aged 20, is uneducated and belongs to the tribal community and his parents never tried to give him education and did not take proper care of him. Therefore, he left his house and was earning, living and working in a restaurant, the court said.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Time of India
21 minutes ago
- Time of India
HC orders fresh hearing on sentencing of 2 convicts
1 2 3 Cuttack: The Orissa high court, in a significant development in a death penalty reference case, has directed a fresh hearing on the question of sentence for two convicts, citing lack of a fair and meaningful opportunity to present mitigating circumstances during the trial. A division bench of the high court, comprising Justice Sangam Kumar Sahoo and Justice Sibo Sankar Mishra, issued the direction on Wednesday in the case concerning confirmation of the death sentence awarded to the two convicts by additional sessions judge court, Athmallik, on Sept 27, 2024. The case was referred to the high court by the state govt for confirmation of the capital punishment given to Prakash Behera and Nandakishor Sethy. Both convicts also filed criminal appeals challenging the trial court's verdict. They appeared virtually from circle jail, Angul, along with their legal aid counsel, Dillip Kumar Das. The state was represented by additional government advocate (AGA) Debasis Tripathy. The trial court had convicted Behera and Sethy under Sections 302 (murder), 364 (kidnapping or abducting in order to murder), 201 (causing disappearance of evidence) and 34 (common intention) of the Indian Penal Code. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like 5 Books Warren Buffett Wants You to Read In 2025 Blinkist: Warren Buffett's Reading List Undo The case was deemed to fall under the 'rarest of rare' category as it involved the brutal killing of three members of a family — a husband, wife and their three-year-old son — whose throats were slit. The incident took place on Oct 9, 2017, in Gambharimaliha village under Kishore Nagar police station limits in Angul district. However, the high court noted that there was no meaningful opportunity provided to the appellants to present mitigating evidence before sentencing. "There appears to be no opportunity afforded to the appellants to submit any material in support of the mitigating circumstances," the court observed, taking note that the orders of conviction and sentence were issued on the same day. The bench directed the senior superintendent of circle jail, Angul, to collect detailed reports on the appellants' past life, psychological conditions and post-conviction conduct. The reports must be prepared with assistance from the probation officer, psychologists, jail doctors and other relevant officials. The matter is scheduled for further hearing on June 23, 2025, at 2pm. The court clarified that it has not commented on the merits of the appeal and that the current exercise is limited solely to the sentencing aspect. The AGA has been directed to ensure virtual appearance of the appellants on that day. The appellants have been asked to submit affidavits detailing mitigating circumstances by June 30, 2025. All supporting reports and materials must also reach the high court by the same date.
Time of India
3 hours ago
- Time of India
Man hides past divorces, loses current plea in HC
Kolkata: Calcutta High Court has set aside the divorce decree granted to a man 5 years ago on the basis of cruelty and desertion, as he hid his prior two divorces from the wife. The couple married in in Jan 2010 but it did not last more than six months. Tired of too many ads? go ad free now A child was born to them in Sept 2010. The couple have been living separately for nearly 15 years now. In 2019, the trial court granted the divorce, upholding the allegations of cruelty and desertion posed by the husband against the wife. While the husband claimed to have disclosed that he was a divorcee, the wife claimed that he did not disclose his two divorces prior to marrying her. The husband claimed that the wife left him after six months of marriage and kept complaining to everyone, including his employer, which led to him being fired. A part of his claim rested on the wife's purported neglect of household duties, her prioritisation of her legal profession as a practising advocate, and repeated threats to file false cases, which, according to him, resulted in a case under Section 498A of IPC. The wife's version was that she was driven out of the house while she was pregnant, and when she tried re-entering after giving birth, she was not allowed. She claimed that the husband questioned her "moral character". To support her claims, the wife submitted documents of the husband's two prior marriages and her approaching the protection officer in Howrah, showing her efforts to seek reconciliation and resume cohabitation. She approached the High Court, stating that the trial court "egregiously erred by equating her legitimate pursuit of legal redress" with cruelty, without any proof of it being false or with malicious intent. Tired of too many ads? go ad free now On June 11, The division bench of Justice Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya and Justice Uday Kumar held: "We conclude that a divorce decree cannot be granted to a party (petitioner) who perpetrated foundational cruelty (eg, deliberate marital deception) of greater magnitude than any alleged misconduct by the other spouse, even if the marriage is irretrievably broken down, as it would constitute a miscarriage of justice and violate the principle of 'clean hands'. " On the fact that the wife resorted to legal means for genuine grievance, the bench held that it cannot be automatically branded as "having committed cruelty" unless there is malicious intent shown.
New Indian Express
3 hours ago
- New Indian Express
MP HC commutes death sentence of tribal youth in child rape case, citing lack of 'brutality', mitigating background
BHOPAL: The Madhya Pradesh High Court has commuted the death sentence of a 20-year-old tribal man convicted of raping and attempting to kill a four-year-old girl, reducing his punishment to 25 years of rigorous imprisonment. The decision was delivered by a division bench comprising Justices Vivek Agarwal and Devnarayan Mishra, who observed that while the act was undeniably brutal, it did not meet the threshold of "brutality" required for the death penalty under the "rarest of rare" doctrine. The case involved the convict, a 20-year-old from a Scheduled Tribe, who was found guilty by a trial court under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO Act), and sentenced to death. According to the prosecution, the convict entered the complainant's hut under the pretext of requesting a cot to sleep on, and later abducted and raped the minor victim from a nearby house during the night. He then left her in an unconscious state in a mango orchard, believing her to be dead. The High Court, while acknowledging the horrifying nature of the crime, noted: 'No doubt that appellant's act was brutal as he has committed rape upon the victim of four years and three months of age and after committing rape also throttled her treating her dead and thrown the victim in such a place where she could not be searched and left the spot but it is also clear that he has not committed brutality,' distinguishing between barbaric acts and acts of extreme cruelty or depravity. The bench considered several mitigating factors in its decision. The convict was described as an uneducated youth from a tribal community, whose parents never tried to educate or properly care for him. He left his home at an early age and was working in a roadside eatery to earn a living. There was no evidence of prior criminal conduct, and the court found no adverse reports regarding his behaviour. The bench further noted that the environment in which the convict grew up did not provide him with the proper atmosphere to develop. The High Court affirmed the conviction under Sections 363, 450, 307, and 201 of the IPC, but commuted the death penalty under Section 6 of the POCSO Act to 25 years of rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 10,000. In default of payment, the convict will serve an additional year of rigorous imprisonment. The decision reflects the court's view that, despite the gravity of the offence and the young age of the victim, the circumstances of the convict's background and the absence of extreme brutality did not justify the death penalty in this case.
