Law Can't Come To Rescue Of Such Person: MP HC Confirms Death Penalty To Youth Accused Of Minor's Rape & Murder [Read Judgment]

Law Cant Come To Rescue Of Such Person: MP HC Confirms Death Penalty To Youth Accused Of Minors Rape & Murder [Read Judgment]

“This Court has the social responsibility to make the citizen of this country know that law cannot come to the rescue of such person on the basis of humanity.”

The Madhya Pradesh High Court on Thursday confirmed death sentence awarded to a youth accused of rape and murder of a 16-year-old girl.

The Sessions Court had convicted Rabbu alias Sarvesh under Sections 450, 376(2)(i), 376(D), 376(A) of IPC and Section 5(g)/6 of the POCSO Act. The prosecution case was that the accused, along with a juvenile co-accused, committed gangrape on the girl and set her ablaze. She died seven days later.

The bench comprising Justice PK Jaiswal and Justice BK Shrivastava, referring to evidence on record, particularly the DNA report, upheld the conviction recorded by the Sessions Court.

Humanity is more in danger in the hands of the persons like the accused

The bench observed that the accused has committed an act of extreme depravity when he raped a young girl whose only fault was that she believed him to be her well-wisher.

"The crime against the girl child are on rise, therefore, extreme punishment may deter the other criminals indulging in such crime. Such crime sends shock wave in the society when it is committed against a girl child. This Court has the social responsibility to make the citizen of this country know that law cannot come to the rescue of such person on the basis of humanity. The extreme punishment may convey a message to these predators that it is not a soft State where the criminals committing such serious crimes may get reprieve in the guise of humanity," the court observed.

The bench also said that humanity is more in danger in the hands of the persons like the accused and the only punishment which he deserves for having committed the reprehensible and gruesome gangrape and murder of an innocent girl to satisfy his lust is nothing but death.

The court further observed: "We are immensely appalled by the alarming increase in the recent incidents of child rapes and also being aware of the rising anger of the society over rape of minor across the country, therefore, consider death sentence as a measure of social necessity and also a mean of deterring other potential offenders. In view of the aforestated, in our considered view, the capital punishment to the accused is the only proper punishment and we see no reason to take a different view than the one taken by the trial Court."

No mandatory requirement to postpone each and every case for hearing on the sentence

The bench also addressed another contention raised on behalf of the accused that if trial court convicted the accused for the offence under the Section in which death penalty may be awarded, the court should postpone the hearing upon sentence. But, in this case, the trial court heard upon the sentence on the same day, on which judgment was passed.

In this regard, the bench observed that there is no mandatory requirement to postpone each and every case for hearing on the sentence. The court said: "Only it is advisable that when the Court is going to impose death penalty, appropriate opportunity for hearing upon sentence should be provided to the accused. In this, it appears from para-55 of the impugned judgment that when the trial Court held guilty the appellant, then the Court explain to the accused that if he wants to say something about the sentence or he wants to produce any evidence then he can call any witness through the Court. After that the Court postpone the hearing for sometimes. Thereafter at 03:30 P.M. the matter was heard on sentence. The accused was represented by the counsel of his own choice but the accused or his counsel did not requested to the Court for seeking any adjournment for arguments or for submission of any type of evidence. Therefore, it can be said that no prejudice has been caused against the applicant."

Read the Judgment Here