Supreme Court Commutes Death Sentence in Child Murder and Sexual Assault Case to 25 Years Rigorous Imprisonment Without Remission
The Supreme Court has commuted the death sentence of a man convicted for the murder and sexual assault of a four-year-old boy, imposing instead rigorous imprisonment for 25 years without remission. The three-judge bench comprising Justice B.R. Gavai, Justice Aravind Kumar and Justice K.V. Viswanathan held that the case did not meet the "rarest of rare" standard to warrant the death penalty, particularly given the possibility of reformation of the convict.
The appeal arose from Sambhubhai Raisangbhai Padiyar v. State of Gujarat, where the appellant was convicted under Sections 302, 364, and 377 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) as well as Sections 4 and 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act. The heinous nature of the crime involved the kidnapping, sodomy, and murder of a four-year-old boy, whose body was found naked near a lake with extensive injuries indicating penetrative sexual assault.
The Trial Court had sentenced the appellant to death, a decision upheld by the Gujarat High Court. Aggrieved, the convict preferred an appeal before the Supreme Court, which upheld the conviction based on strong circumstantial evidence, including witness testimony, forensic analysis, and medical findings.
While acknowledging the diabolic nature of the crime, the Court observed that the convict, who was 24 years old at the time, had no prior criminal antecedents and hailed from a socio-economically disadvantaged background. It further noted that a mitigation report submitted to the Court indicated that the appellant exhibited moderate psychotic features, intellectual disabilities, and a feeling of remorse.
The Bench referred to the convict's conduct in jail, which was reported to be good, and observed that there remained a possibility of reformation. Citing the precedent in Swami Shraddananda v. State of Karnataka (2008), the Court concluded that the death penalty was not justified and instead opted for a punishment proportionate to the gravity of the offence.
The Supreme Court observed that a life imprisonment term of 14 years, which is generally applicable under Indian law before remission, would be insufficient given the brutal nature of the crime. It observed:
"A sentence of life imprisonment which normally works out for 14 years would be grossly disproportionate and inadequate. Having regard to the nature of the offence, a sentence of imprisonment for a prescribed period without remission would alone be proportionate to the crime and also not jeopardize the public confidence in the efficacy of the legal system."
Accordingly, the Court sentenced the appellant to 25 years of rigorous imprisonment without remission under Section 302 IPC, while the sentences under Section 364 IPC and Section 6 of the POCSO Act were ordered to run concurrently.
Senior Advocate Uttara Babbar represented the appellant-convict, while Advocate Swati Ghildiyal appeared for the State of Gujarat.
Case Title: Sambhubhai Raisangbhai Padiyar v. State of Gujarat
Case No: Special Leave Petition (Crl.) Nos. 9015-9016 of 2019
Bench: Justice Aravind Kumar, Justice B.R. Gavai and Justice K.V. Viswanathan
