Top News Headlines 21st Apr 2022: Every Saint Has A Past: SC Commutes The Death Sentence Imposed On Convict For The Rape And Murder Of A 4 Year Old

Every Saint Has A Past: SC Commutes The Death Sentence Imposed On Convict For The Rape And Murder Of A 4 Year Old

• In the case of Mohd Firoz vs State of Madhya Pradesh the Apex Court has commuted the death sentence of a man accused of the rape and murder of a 4 year old girl. The Court observed that the maximum punishment prescribed might not be the sole determinative factor for repairing the crippled psyche of the offender. 
• The trial Court had found the accused guilty under sections 302, 376(2), 363, 366 of IPC and section 5/6 of POCSO and had sentenced him to death. The said order was confirmed in the HC and the death penalty was upheld. 
• The appellant/accused had approached the Apex Court against the confirmation of the Madhya Pradesh HC. After re-appreciating the evidence on record, the Apex Court was of the opinion that the prosecution had been able to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt and had been able to prove the chain of circumstances without any break which showed that the accused had indeed committed the offence. To prove these chain of circumstances, the Court had referred to a plethora of cases like Sharad birdhichand Sarda vs State of Maharashtra (1984) SCC, Mohan Singh vs Prem Singh and anr (2002) SCC and Rajendar vs State (NCT of Delhi) (2019) SCC.
• While deciding the question as to the quantum of the sentence, the Apex Court referred to the decision in the case of Bachan Singh vs State of Punjab (1980) SCC where the Court had upheld the constitutional validity of death sentence, held that the imposition of the death penalty is to be guided by the paramount beacons of the legislative policy discernable from sections 354(3) and 235(2) of CrPC, i.e., the death penalty can be imposed only in the gravest cases of of extreme culpability.
• The Court also referred to the case of Machhi Singh vs State of Punjab (1983) SCC where the Court had said that the guidelines laid down in Bachan Singh case have to be applied individually to the facts of each and every case where the question of imposing the death penalty arises. 
• Thus, while commuting the death sentence of the accused, the Court observed that one of the basic principles of restorative justice which had been evolved over the years is to give an opportunity to the offender to repair the damage that he has caused, and to become  a socially useful individual when he is released from the jail. While balancing the scales of retributive and restorative justice, the sentence of life that had been awarded to him for the offence of rape under 376 IPC, an imprisonment for a period of 20 years was awarded instead. 

Live-In Relationships A By-Product Of Article 21; Promotes Promiscuity, Lascivious Behaviour: Madhya Pradesh HC 

• In the case of Abhishek vs State of Madhya Pradesh the Madhya Pradesh HC has termed live-in relationships as the by-product of Article 21 which promotes lascivious behaviours. 
• The Court also observed that the people who want to exploit this freedom are quick to embrace it and are ignorant of the fact that the same does not confer any rights on any of the partners in the relationship. 
• The facts of the instant case are that the victim had lodged an FIR against the applicant/accused alleging that she was friends with the accused. One day he called her to his room and offered her a drink, which she drank and fell unconscious. When she woke up she saw that she was naked, and upon asking the applicant she came to know that he had raped her and made a video of the incident. 
• He threatened to make her video go viral and kept committing rape on her. When she got engaged to another man, he, being a jilted lover, started harassing her and her family by sending them messages and photographs and also threatened them saying that if the prosecutrix got married to another man, he would make her videos and photographs go viral. 
• Pursuant to the lodging of the FIR under sections 376, 328, 313, 506 and 34 of IPC, the applicant moved the HC seeking anticipatory bail. 
• The Court noted that as per the case diary and other documents on record, it appeared that the applicant and the victim were in a live-in relationship for quite some time, and the prosecutrix also got pregnant a couple of times. She got her pregnancies terminated under the alleged pressure of the applicant. 
• Terming the acts of the applicant as ‘serious’ the Court denied the prayer of anticipatory bail of the accused. The Court also observed that the freedom of live-in relationship comes with its own limitations, in that no right is accrued to any of the parties. This by-product of Article 21 has engulfed the ethos of the Indian society and has led to a steep rise in sexual offences. 

If Court Believes Disputes Settled By The Parties In Matrimonial Disputes Is Consensual, Quashing FIR For Non-Compoundable Offences May Be Allowed: Delhi HC

• In Raja Berwa & Ors v. State & Anr 2022, Justice Chandra Dhari Singh held that if the Court is pleased that the parties have resolved the disputes amicably, without undue pressure, even in non-compoundable offenses on matrimonial disputes, then FIRs or subsequent criminal proceedings concerning the crimes can be quashed to secure the ends of justice. Therefore, the FIR under Section 498A, 406, and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 was quashed by the Court.
• In this case, the petitioner no.1 and respondent no.2 married in 2003, but owing to temperamental disagreements, they have been living separately since 2005. A girl child was born out of wedlock. Despite several attempts at reconciliation, neither party could resolve their issues. The wife filed an FIR against all of the petitioners through the CAW Cell. However, due to the intervention of family members, both parties subsequently reached an agreement before the Mediation Centre. 
• The parties filed for divorce under the Hindu Marriage Act of 1955, as per the settlement terms. Divorce was granted to the parties under Section 13B (1) on August 31, 2021. Furthermore, under Section 13B (2) of the HMA, a petition was filed by mutual consent to dissolve the marriage. Moreover, the wife claimed to have settled all her claims with the husband and other family members for a sum of Rs. 15,50,000 in reverence of her dowry articles, stridhan, etc., and future maintenance and permanent alimony for Rs. 10,00,000, with the remaining Rs. 5,50,000 agreed to be paid at the time of the FIR's quashing. It was consequently requested that the FIR be dismissed on the grounds of the Memorandum of Understanding and the Supreme Court's decision in Gian Singh vs. the State of Punjab.
• Section 34 of the IPC provides joint culpability when multiple people have a common intention.
• Section 406 of the IPC outlines the punishment for criminal breach of trust.
• Section 498A of the IPC punishes a woman's husband or any relative of the husband who subjected her to abuse.
• In Gian Singh vs. the State of Punjab (2012) 10 SCC 303, the petitioner sought a quashing of the FIR under Section 482, CrPC on the grounds of compounding the offense. The HC had rejected that petition under Section 482 CrPC. As a result, another petition was filed before the Supreme Court.
• In another relevant case, B.S. Joshi & Ors. vs. State of Haryana & Ors. (2003) 4 SCC 675, the Hon'ble SC held that if quashing of FIR becomes essential for safeguarding the ends of justice, Section 320 CrPC would not be a bar to exercise the authority quashing under Section 482 CrPC.
• After hearing both parties and referring to the aforementioned cases, the Hon'ble Court concluded that the proceeding was private in nature and did not have a significant influence on society as both parties came to an agreement. Furthermore, it stated that the parties had achieved a consensus and had peacefully resolved all the problems without any pressure.
• Therefore, the Hon'ble HC allowed the petition.