“She expected him to behave to her like a father. He smothered her, prevented her from crying, raped her and in the process committed murder.”
The Supreme Court, on Tuesday, stayed the execution of death penalty of a man accused of rape and murder Of 9-Yr-Old Girl.
The Bench headed by the Chief Justice of India Dipak Misra granted leave in the Special Leave Petition filed by the accused against the Kerala High court judgment that had confirmed the death sentence. Records have been called for.
On 28th February 2018, the Kerala High court had confirmed the death sentence imposed on Abdul Nassar for rape and murder of a nine-year-old girl in Manjeri, Kerala.
On her way to madrassa, the victim girl went to her friend’s home, so as to go along with her. The prosecution case is that the father of her friend was alone at the house at that time and he committed rape on her, strangled and smothered her and she died. According to the prosecution, the dead body was hidden beneath the cot in the bedroom of the accused and later he had shifted the dead body to the bathroom with an intention was to dispose of the dead body in the septic tank situated in the said house compound.
The Division bench of Kerala High court headed by Justice AM Shaffique had observed that the evidence is overwhelming and it points out only to the commission of the crime by the accused.
The High court also said that the crime is so brutal and shocking to the judicial mind as well as the community at large. While confirming the death penalty, the bench said: “All circumstances relating to the case are aggravating. A child aged 9 years goes to her friend's house to call her to accompany to the madrassa. She is taken into the house and becomes a prey to a male aged 45 years. She expected him to behave to her like a father. He smothered her, prevented her from crying, raped her and in the process committed murder. He kept the dead body under his cot. Thereafter it was taken and dumped in a bathroom with an intention to conceal it in the septic tank. There are no mitigating circumstances to take it outside the purview of rarest of rare case.”