- 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.
"Loved reading this piece by Shweta?
Join LAWyersClubIndia's network for daily News Updates, Judgment Summaries, Articles, Forum Threads, Online Law Courses, and MUCH MORE!!"
Join LAWyersClubIndia's network for daily News Updates, Judgment Summaries, Articles, Forum Threads, Online Law Courses, and MUCH MORE!!"
