Shocks Conscience of Society, But Not a Fit Case for Death Penalty: Chhattisgarh HC Commutes Death Sentence in Rape-Murder of 7-Year-Old Girl

Post By 24law
January 5, 2025

Pranav B Prem

The Chhattisgarh High Court recently commuted the death sentence imposed on one Dipak Baghel, who had been convicted for the brutal rape and murder of a seven-year-old girl. The Division Bench, comprising Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha and Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad, held that while the crime “shocks the conscience of society,” it does not fall under the “rarest of rare” category warranting the death penalty. Instead, the court modified the sentence to life imprisonment for the remainder of the appellant’s natural life.

Case Background

The incident occurred in February 2021, when Baghel enticed the victim and her younger brother from their home to attend a cultural function. Leaving the brother at the venue, Baghel took the girl near railway tracks, where he committed rape and fatally injured her by smashing her head with a heavy stone. To destroy evidence, he threw her mutilated body on the tracks. Baghel, aged 29 at the time, was a close associate of the victim’s maternal uncle and had been living in her maternal home. The trial court, after convicting him under multiple provisions of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO Act), sentenced him to death under Section 302 IPC and Section 6 of the POCSO Act.

Appellant’s Arguments

The defense, led by Advocate Palash Tiwari, argued that the prosecution failed to prove the charges beyond reasonable doubt and that the circumstantial evidence was insufficient to establish guilt. It was also contended that Baghel’s young age and lack of prior criminal history made him a candidate for reform and rehabilitation. Relying on precedents like Shatrughna Baban Meshram v. State of Maharashtra (2021) and Manoj v. State of Madhya Pradesh (2022), the defense urged the court to commute the death penalty to life imprisonment.

Conviction Affirmed

The High Court meticulously examined the evidence, including:

DNA Evidence: A match between Baghel’s DNA and samples collected from the victim corroborated the prosecution’s case.
Medical Testimonies: The post-mortem revealed 16 external injuries, including four on the victim’s genitalia, confirming rape and homicide.
Last Seen Theory: Witnesses, including the victim’s mother and brother, established that Baghel was last seen with the victim.
Recovery of Items: The victim’s anklet and the blood-stained shirt and stone used in the crime were recovered based on Baghel’s disclosure.

Sentencing and Mitigating Factors

While affirming the conviction, the Bench considered whether the death penalty was justified. Referring to the principles laid down in Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab (1980) and other landmark judgments, the court emphasized the necessity of balancing aggravating and mitigating factors.

Key mitigating factors included:

Baghel’s age (29 years at the time of the crime).
Lack of prior criminal antecedents.
Conduct in jail, which was reported as “absolutely normal.”
Potential for reform and rehabilitation, especially given his socioeconomic background as a member of the Other Backward Class community.

The court expressed concerns about the trial court not adequately considering these factors before imposing the death sentence. It emphasized that capital punishment should be reserved for cases where the offender’s reformation is impossible and the crime’s brutality defies all norms of humanity.