The Madhya Pradesh High Court, Jabalpur Bench, has commuted the death sentence awarded to a 20-year-old tribal man convicted for the rape and attempted murder of a four-year-old girl. A Division Bench comprising Justice Vivek Agarwal and Justice Devnarayan Mishra converted the capital punishment to rigorous imprisonment for 25 years, considering the appellant’s illiteracy, tribal background, and lack of education.
Background
The Special Judge (POCSO Act), District Khandwa, had convicted Rajaram @ Rajkumar and sentenced him to death on 21 April 2023 under Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act. He was also convicted under Sections 363, 376AB, 307, 450, and 201 of the Indian Penal Code.
According to the prosecution, on the night of 30–31 October 2022, the appellant abducted the four-year-old girl while she was asleep, sexually assaulted her, and left her in an unconscious state in a mango orchard, believing her to be dead. She was later found severely injured and semi-conscious.
Arguments
For the Appellant:
Senior Advocate Sanjay K. Agrawal, appearing as amicus curiae, contended that the conviction rested solely on circumstantial evidence and DNA reports. He argued that the appellant was only 20 years old, belonged to a Scheduled Tribe, was uneducated, and came from a deprived background. The absence of eyewitnesses and the non-recording of the victim’s statement further weakened the prosecution’s case, according to the defense.
For the State:
Deputy Advocate General Yash Soni, representing the State, defended the trial court’s findings and emphasized that DNA evidence and recovery of incriminating materials strongly implicated the appellant. He cited various Supreme Court precedents to support the retention of the death sentence.
Court’s Observations
Justice Devnarayan Mishra, writing for the Bench, upheld the conviction based on corroborated circumstantial evidence and DNA profiling. The Court observed:
“…this establishes the identity of the appellant that the appellant had committed the offence as he disclosed the place where the offence of sexual assault was committed and after sexual assault, victim was thrown.”
The Bench noted that the DNA profile of the appellant matched the vaginal and anal slides taken from the victim, and human blood was found on both the victim’s and the appellant’s clothes.
However, the Court disagreed with the imposition of the death sentence. Referring to mitigating circumstances, the Bench held:
“The background of the appellant is that he is uneducated youth of 20 years of age and belongs to the tribal community and his parents never tried to give him education and not properly take care of him, therefore he has left his house and was self bread earner and living and working in a Dhaba (Restaurant).”
The Court applied the principles laid down in Bachan Singh and Machhi Singh, and while assessing whether the case qualified as “rarest of rare,” held:
“In that night, the act of the appellant could not be said to be ‘brutal’ though ‘barbaric’.”
The Court further noted the absence of conclusive medical evidence of permanent disability to the victim, contrary to what was assumed by the trial court.
Decision
While maintaining the conviction under all sections, the Bench modified the sentence as follows:
- Under Section 6 of the POCSO Act: The death sentence was commuted to rigorous imprisonment for 25 years, along with a fine of ₹10,000. In default, the appellant shall undergo an additional one year of rigorous imprisonment.
- Convictions under Sections 363, 307, 450, and 201 of IPC were affirmed.
The appeal was thus partially allowed, and the criminal reference regarding confirmation of the death sentence was answered accordingly.
