Death sentence can’t be given just because rape victim is a minor: SC
Supreme Court of India
Apex Court commuted death sentence of a convict
New Delhi, Nov. 9 (Delhi Crown): In a ruling that may attract criticism and comment from the public, particularly from women and past rape victims, the Supreme Court on Tuesday said many factors needed to be taken into consideration before deciding whether a person accused of raping a minor deserved to be sentenced to death.
Commuting the death sentence of Irappa Siddappa Murgannavar, declared guilty of raping and murdering a five-year-old girl before throwing her body into the Bennihalla stream in Karnataka’s Gadag district, a three-judge apex court bench observed that in 67 past cases of a similar nature (rape and murder) since 1981, courts across the country and at various levels, had imposed the death sentence in only 12 cases.
Using the case of Shatrughna Baban Meshram Vs State of Maharashtra (2021) as a reference point, Justices L. Nageswara Rao, Sanjiv Khanna and B.R. Gavai said that in that particular case, 67 Supreme Court judgments of the previous 40 years were examined with regard to imposition of death sentence by a trial court or high court for alleged offences under IPC Sections 376 and 302, and wherein, the age of victims raped was below 16 years of age.
It was found that death sentence was confirmed only in 12 out of the 67 cases and that in 51 of those 67 cases, the victims were aged below 12 years.
“It appears from the above data that low age of the victim has not been considered as the only or sufficient factor by this court for imposing a death sentence. If it were the case, then all, or almost all, 67 cases would have culminated in imposition of sentence of death on the accused,” the three judges ruled.
Referring to another case — Bantu alias Naresh Giri Vs State of Madhya Pradesh (2001) — the Supreme Court said a six-year-old girl had been raped and murdered by the accused; yet, the high court, did not find it to be the rarest of the rare cases, requiring capital punishment for the accused.
However, the Apex Court said that while the judgment of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in 2001 was incorrect, it declared that only in the following circumstances can a death sentence be commuted in cases of rape.
The appellant had no criminal antecedents, nor was any evidence presented to prove that the commission of the offence was pre-planned.
There is no material shown by the state to indicate that the appellant cannot be reformed and is a continuing threat to the society.
The Apex Court said that since the conduct of Irappa Siddappa Murgannavar in jail had been found satisfactory post him being sentenced to death more than four years ago, the court was of the view that this factor must also be taken into consideration to commute his death sentence. “We would consider the appellant’s conduct in prison as expiation for his past deeds, also reflecting his desire to reform and take a humane turn. Furthermore, the young age of the appellant at the time of commission of the offence (23/25 years), his weak socio-economic background, absence of any criminal antecedents, non-pre-meditated nature of the crime, and the fact that he has spent nearly 10 years 10 months in prison have weighed with us as other extenuating factors, which add up against imposition of death penalty which is to be inflicted only in rarest of the rare cases,” the Apex Court bench ruled.
