Top News Headlines 10th Feb 2022: Loathsome Nature Of The Crime Alone Cannot Be The Decisive Factor In Awarding Death Sentence

Loathsome Nature Of The Crime Alone Cannot Be The Decisive Factor In Awarding Death Sentence: SC

• The Hon’ble SC has, in Pappu vs. State of Uttar Pradesh that the despicable nature of the crime alone cannot be the deciding factor for awarding a death sentence. Consideration should also be given to the other mitigating circumstances before arriving at a conclusion that all other punishments other than the capital punishment were foreclosed.
• In the instant case, Pappu was sentenced to death after the Trial Court found him guilty of the rape and murder of a seven year old girl. He persuaded the child to accompany him on the pretext of picking lychee, raped her and then after having caused her death, dumped her body near a bridge on a riverbank.
• The Allahabad HC rejected the appeal and confirmed the sentence of death.
• The Hon’ble SC, however, did not agree with the HC and the lower Court on the sentence that had been awarded. The Court held that it has been proven beyond reasonable doubt that the the child met with her cruel and gruesome end at the hands of the appellant, after having been subjected to sexual assaults, and it has also been proved that the victim had last been seen with the victim. The appellant had also not been able to satisfy the Court of his whereabouts when the occurrence took place, thus, did not have a strong alibi.
• The Court also agreed that the medical and scientific evidence is also concurrent with the prosecution case. The Court thus held that the case of circumstantial evidence stands the panchsheel test laid down in Sharad Birdhichand Sarda vs. State of Maharashtra AIR 1984 SC and that the Trial Court had rightly convicted the accused and the HC was right in rejecting the appeal.
• However, the Court differed in opinion as regards the quantum. The Court explained the evolution of the doctrine of rarest of rare case and observed that the doctrine was evolved to preserve human life, even if it be of the accused, unless the Court feels that its termination is absolutely essential in the interests of justice. This has led to the evolution of the said doctrine in the landmark case of Bachan Singh vs. State of Punjab AIR 1980 SC.
• The Court observed in this light that both the trial Court as well as the HC had taken the heinous nature of the offence as the sole criteria for awarding the sentence of death. The Court had failed to take note of the law laid down in Bachan Singh’s case.
• The Court also held that death sentence can be awarded when the Court comes to the conclusion that the option of any other factor other than capital punishment were foreclosed.
• The SC thus, commuted the sentence of death to one of imprisonment for life with no remission or release for 30 years.

No Leniency To Be Showed For Offence Committed Under POCSO: Supreme Court

• The Hon’ble Supreme Court while hearing the case of, Nawabuddin v State of Uttarakhand, observed that children, especially a girl child need full protection and greater care and in cases of sexual offences against them, the responsibility on the shoulders of the Court becomes more onerous.
• In most cases of sexual offences against children, the perpetrator is usually a family member or a close friend and most of these cases are not even reported. Therefore, no leniency must be shown to an accused under Prevention of Child from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO).
• Brief facts of the case are that the accused-appellant entices a four-year old girl (victim) and took her in the bushes with an intent to rape her. However, he was spotted disrobed and in the processing of the raping the girl by a few persons.
• A First Information Report (FIR) was filed and the accused was charged under Section 376(2)(i) of the Indian Penal Code, 1807 (IPC) and Sections 5 and 6 of the POCSO Act. Section 376 of IPC provides punishment for rape and Sections 5 and 6 deal with aggravated sexual assault and punishment for the same.
• The Trial Court sentenced the accused to life imprisonment and along with a fine. This order was confirmed by the High Court (HC). Aggrieved, the accused filed an appeal with the Supreme Court on the contending that his conviction under Section 5 and 6 is not tenable. At most the case may fall under Section 7/8 of POCSO Act. Section 7 of POCSO Act defines sexual assault and Section 8 prescribes punishment for the same.
• The Counsel for accused submitted that the offence was an attempt to commit aggravated penetrative sexual assault punishable under section 8 of POCSO Act and in the alternative it was also submitted that considering the age of the accused (75 years), imposing life sentence is too harsh and disproportionate to the offence committed.
• The Hon’ble SC while hearing the matter, confirmed the conviction of the Trial Court and High Court under Sections 5 & 6 of POCSO Act. The Court held that the offences tantamount to penetrative sexual assault under section 3(b) read with section 5 of POCSO Act.
• The two judge Bench further remarked that awarding a suitable punishment which is commensurate with the commission of an act of sexual assault, harassment , a strong message must be sent out to the society that no leniency shall be shown to offenders under POCSO Act.
• The Court further observed that POCSO Act has been enacted to protect children from sexual offences as provided under Articles 15 and 39 of the Indian Constitution.
• In the instant case, the neighbour, instead of fulfilling his responsibility and showing fatherly love and affection toward the child, exploited the victim’s innocence and vulnerability.
• Concluding the case, the Court, considering the mitigating circumstances, the age of the accused and his health converted his life imprisonment to rigorous imprisonment of 15 years and upheld the fine imposed by the earlier courts.