The Chhattisgarh High Court overturned the death sentence awarded to Dipak Baghel, convicted of the rape and murder of a 7-year-old girl. While acknowledging the severity of the crime, the court concluded that it did not meet the stringent “rarest of rare” standard required for imposing the death penalty, as laid down in the jurisprudence of the Hon’ble Supreme Court.
Background
The incident occurred on February 28, 2021, when Dipak Baghel, a 29-year-old, lured the victim and her younger brother to attend a local event. He later separated them, raped the child near railway tracks, and killed her by smashing her head with a stone. The accused then placed the child’s body on the tracks to destroy evidence.
Following an investigation, the Fast-Track Special Court in Rajnandgaon convicted Baghel under Sections 302, 363, 366, and 201 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Section 6 of the POCSO Act, sentencing him to death. The case was referred to the High Court for mandatory confirmation under Section 366 of the CrPC.
Key Legal Issues Addressed
1. Applicability of the Death Penalty under the “Rarest of Rare” Doctrine:
– Whether the crime’s brutality justified the death sentence.
– Adherence to Supreme Court guidelines from cases like Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab (1980) that limit capital punishment to instances where life imprisonment is insufficient.
2. Consideration of Mitigating Factors:
– Whether the trial court considered the accused’s potential for rehabilitation and absence of prior criminal record.
– Balancing aggravating circumstances against mitigating factors.
3. Rehabilitation and Reform:
– Whether the accused’s age and personal circumstances allowed for the possibility of reformation.
High Court’s Observations
The division bench, led by Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha and Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad, extensively analyzed the case under the framework provided by the Supreme Court for imposing the death penalty. The court made the following critical observations:
1. Rarest of Rare Doctrine:
– The court emphasized that the death penalty must be reserved for cases where the crime’s gravity is so exceptional that life imprisonment appears grossly inadequate.
– It ruled: “The present case does not fall within the category of rarest of rare cases wherein the death sentence can be awarded in view of the settled principle of law as held in a catena of judgments by the Hon’ble Supreme Court.”
2. Failure to Evaluate Mitigating Factors:
– Baghel’s age at the time of the offense (29 years) suggested potential for reform.
– The absence of prior criminal antecedents was noted as a mitigating factor.
– The trial court failed to sufficiently assess alternative punishments, particularly life imprisonment without parole.
3. Rehabilitation and Reform:
– The court underscored the importance of considering the accused’s capacity for reform and criticized the trial court for not conducting a comprehensive evaluation.
4. Supreme Court Guidelines on Death Penalty:
– The judgment referenced precedents, including:
– Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab: Established the rarest of rare doctrine.
– Shatrughan Chauhan v. Union of India: Highlighted the need for proportionality and the possibility of rehabilitation.
– Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra: Stressed the importance of a complete chain of evidence in circumstantial cases.
Final Decision
The High Court commuted the death sentence to life imprisonment without the possibility of parole, ensuring that Baghel will spend the remainder of his natural life in prison. This decision aligns with the principles of justice, proportionality, and rehabilitation enshrined in Indian law.
