The case did not fall into the rarest category, the bench said.
New Delhi:
The Supreme Court on Tuesday overturned the death sentence imposed on a convict in a 2016 case of sexual assault and murder of a four-year-old minor boy and replaced it with a 25-year prison sentence without remission.
Since the judges found the crime to be diabolical, a bench comprising Justices BR Gavai, Aravind Kumar and KV Viswanathan took note of the extenuating circumstances and observed that it was not a case in which there was any possibility of reform is completely excluded.
The case did not fall into the rarest category, the bench said.
“In view of the nature of the crime, a prison sentence of 25 years without remission would be proportionate to the crime and would not endanger public confidence in the effectiveness of the legal system,” it said. A prison sentence of 25 years without remission would be a fair one Dessert.”
The Supreme Court announced its verdict on an appeal filed by convict Sambhubhai Raisangbhai Padhiyar against the April 2019 verdict of the Gujarat High Court.
The Supreme Court had upheld the conviction and death sentence awarded against him by a trial court for offenses punishable under various sections of the IPC, including murder besides the Protection of Children from Sexual Offenses (POCSO) Act, 2012.
According to the prosecution, Padhiyar kidnapped the four-year-old boy in Bharuch district of Gujarat in April 2016, sexually assaulted him and murdered him.
“There is no doubt that the crime committed by the appellant was diabolical in nature. He seduced the innocent child by seducing him with ice cream and brutally seduced and murdered the four-year-old. Further, the appellant strangled the deceased mercilessly,” the high court said.
The mitigation investigation report filed before the Supreme Court revealed that the complainant was 24 years old at the time of the incident, had no criminal history and came from a low socio-economic income household.
The judges said the Vadodara Jail superintendent's report shows that the complainant's behavior in jail was completely normal and his behavior was good.
It was also said that the report from a psychiatric hospital showed that the complainant currently had no psychiatric problems.
“Taking into account all the facts and circumstances, we are of the opinion that the present case is not a case in which one can say that the possibility of improvement is completely excluded. The option of a life sentence is also not ruled out,” the judge said.
Although the appellant's case did not fall into the rarest category given the nature of the crime, the court was “strongly” of the view that a life sentence – which is normally 14 years – would be wholly disproportionate and inadequate.
The Supreme Court's verdict referred to the prosecution's case that the child was playing near his house when the accused took him away on the pretext of getting him ice cream. His remains were later found near bushes.
“The deceased, aged between three and a half and four years, was a small child, just out of toddlerhood and in the pre-school stage. This is very significant because the complainant comes from the neighborhood of the deceased's house. “If you take the deceased with you, you must assume that the small child will be brought back and dropped off at the house,” it said.
It was also revealed that the convict had not given any explanation as to what happened after spending time with the child and that it was not the man's case that he handed the child over to someone else or left the boy at home .
The court said the complainant's lack of explanation was “confusing” to say the least.
The Supreme Court noted that it is quite clear when the defendant was last seen with the deceased, especially when the period of time between the stage of the last meeting and the occurrence of death was so short that the defendant could provide a plausible explanation He has to explain how he separated from the deceased and it has to be satisfactory.
While upholding his conviction for the offenses including murder and in accordance with the provisions of the POCSO Act, the court set aside the death sentence for the offense under Section 302 (Murder) and substituted it with the rigorous imprisonment of 25 years without remission.
The court, while partially allowing the appeal, set aside the fine of Rs 20,000 imposed on him by the trial court, taking into account his socio-economic situation.
(Except for the headline, this story has not been edited by NDTV staff and is published from a syndicated feed.)
