Gujarat High Court Commutes Convict's Death Penalty For Raping Minor Girl, Says Trial Court Didn't Verify Possibility Of Reformation

The Gujarat High Court recently commuted the death sentence of a man to life imprisonment who was convicted by the trial court for raping a minor girl.

In doing so the court said that the trial court while sentencing the convict to death, did not give a finding on the aspect of the convict's reformation and the possibility that he will become a useful member to the society if is given a chance to do so.

A division bench of Justice Ilesh Vora and Justice RT Vachchani in its order referred to Supreme Court judgments on death penalty and the circumstances in which it is to be awarded and said:

"...it is implicit clear that the death sentence is to be awarded only in exceptional cases as it is obligatory on the part of the learned Court concerned to give a finding on the aspect of reformation and the possibility that the convict will become a useful member to the society in case he will be given a chance to do so. In nutshell, as per the guidelines indicated in Bachan Singh's case (supra) which otherwise applies to the facts of each individual case while imposing the death sentence, the Court concerned has to consider the gravity of extreme culpability, the mitigating circumstances, the social economic condition of the offender equating the way and the circumstances in which the crime has been committed; so also the victimisation of the person involved in the crime and the adverse societal impact of the crime in question. All these aspects require to be examined by calling for appropriate report/s and after recording such subjective satisfaction that there appears such extreme and exceptional circumstances leaving no room for the Court except to impose the death penalty".

Referring to the present case the court said:

"Thus, considering the evidence adduced before the learned Special Court, the learned Special Court awarded the death penalty; however while awarding the sentence of death penalty has not taken into consideration the several factors as deliberated in the foregoing paragraphs with any possibility of reformative measures and therefore in absence of any antecedents, the imposition of death penalty deserves to be interfered with as nothing sort of any such material emerges from the record; nor seems to have been pointed out to us from the material which may constrain us to affirm the conclusion arrived at by the learned Special Court"

The court said that the jail record showed that the convict was not involved in any offence, except the present offence.

The bench said,"...therefore the test to be applied for while awarding death penalty in such heinous offence as discussed herein above after referring to the catena of decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court is to observe that there is no criminal antecedents; convict is having good behaviour in prison and there would be chances of reformation".

It said that no antecedents of the convict was reported and his conduct in jail was reported to be good. However, the bench said, the special court not undertaken any such exercise to verify the aspect leading towards reformative measures.

The court was hearing a plea seeking confirmation of the death sentence awarded to the accused by the Sessions Court, and the accused's appeal against challenging the said judgment. The accused was convicted under Section 376AB(punishment for rape committed on a woman under 12 years of age) IPC and sentenced to death.

The complainant, said that when she returned from work one day, her 6-year-old daughter came to her crying and her leggings and her inner clothes were found wet. The complainant checked bathroom and found her daughter's leggings lying in wet condition, so also the top was lying in wet condition having bloodstains. Upon checking, the complainant found that blood was coming from her daughter's genital area.

She said that her daughter told her that the accused had called her over to his house and on the pretext of giving her tamarind, took her to inside his house took off her leggings and had raped her. He had thereafter given her ten rupees and said that if she tells this to anyone, he will do this again.

The court examined the evidence of the minor survivor as well as her mother and said that it supports the case of the prosecution.

"Therefore, now if the statement recorded under Section-164 of Cr.P.C is taken into consideration, the victim has clearly stated therein that the accused lured her to give Ambali, took her to his house, removed her lenghi, the accused put his private part into her private part due to which blood was coming out there-from for the whole day and there was inflammation...it is clearly proved that the accused who is aged 45 years has taken the minor victim who is aged only 6 years, a girl of tender age who has no understanding of anything, into his house by luring her to give Ambali and committed forcible sexual intercourse rape with her. The accused is shown to the child witness on the screen and the witness has identified him. Thus, the evidence of the victim girl supports the case of prosecution in toto," it said.

The court referred to the medical evidence as well and said that it clearly established that the accused committed forcible sexual intercourse with the minor victim on the day of the incident.

"Thus, considering the aforementioned F.S.L. Examination Report, the fact is clearly established that the bloodstains found at the scene of the incident, on the accused's pants and shirt, and on the victim's frock and legging, match the victim's Blood Group 'O'. This evidence supports the conclusion that the accused lured the victim on the pretext of giving her aambali...and forcibly committed rape with her," the court said.

Taking note of the evidence, the court said that the complainant, the victim and the witnesses have adduced evidence corroborating the facts of prosecution case and said that the prosecution had clearly proved that the victim minor girl aged six years has been raped by the accused.

The high court thus commuted the sentence to life imprisonment which shall mean the "imprisonment for reminder of life".

Case title: STATE OF GUJARAT v/s JAYANTIBHAI @ LANGHO CHIMANBHAI SOLANKI

R/CRIMINAL CONFIRMATION CASE NO. 4 of 2022 and connected petition

Click Here To Read/Download Order