Supreme Court Sets Aside Death Penalty In Boy's Sexual Assault, Murder Case

The Supreme Court on Tuesday set aside the death sentence imposed on a convict in a sexual assault and murder case of a four-year-old minor boy in 2016, and substituted it with a 25-year jail term without remission.

Holding the crime was diabolical, a bench comprising Justices B R Gavai, Aravind Kumar and K V Viswanathan, took note of the mitigating circumstances and observed it was not a case where the possibility of reformation was completely ruled out.

The case does not fall in the rarest of rare category, the bench said.

"Having regard to the nature of the offence, a sentence of imprisonment for a prescribed period without remission would alone be proportionate to the crime and also not jeopardise the public confidence in the efficacy of the legal system," it said, "a sentence of imprisonment for a period of 25 years without remission would be a just dessert".

The apex court delivered its judgement on an appeal filed by convict Sambhubhai Raisangbhai Padhiyar challenging the Gujarat High Court's April 2019 verdict.

The high court had confirmed the conviction and death sentence imposed on him by a trial court for the offences punishable under various sections of the IPC, including murder besides the Protection of Children from Sexual offences (POCSO) Act, 2012.

According to the prosecution, Padhiyar kidnapped the four-year-old boy, sexual assaulted and murdered him in April, 2016, in Gujarat's Bharuch district.

"Without doubt, the crime committed by the appellant was diabolic in character. He enticed the innocent child by tempting him with ice-cream and brutally sodomised and murdered the four-year old. The appellant also mercilessly strangulated the deceased," the top court said.

The mitigation investigation report filed before the apex court showed the appellant was 24-years of age at the time of incident, no criminal antecedents and hailed from a low socio-economic household.

The bench said the report from the superintendent of Vadodara Jail indicated the appellant's behaviour in prison was completely normal and his conduct was good.

It further said the report from a mental health hospital indicated the appellant had no psychiatric problem at present.

"Considering the overall facts and circumstances, we hold that the present is not a case where it can be said that the possibility of reformation is completely ruled out. The option of life imprisonment is also not foreclosed," the bench said.

It said though the case of the appellant fell short of the rarest of rare category, considering the nature of the crime, the court "strongly" felt a sentence of life imprisonment -- normally working out for 14 years -- would be grossly disproportionate and inadequate.

The top court's verdict noted the prosecution's case alleging the child was playing near his house when the accused took him on the pretext of getting him ice-cream, and later his mortal remains were found near bushes.

"The deceased, aged between three-and-a-half and four years, was a small child, just out of toddlerhood and at the preschool stage. This is very significant because when the appellant has from the neighbourhood of the house of the deceased taken the deceased one would expect that the small child would be brought back and dropped at the house," it said.

It also came on record that the convict offered no explanation about what had happened after he spent time with the child and it wasn't the man's case that he handed over the child to someone else or dropped the boy home.

The bench said the lack of explanation by the appellant was to say the least "baffling".

The top court observed it was well settled if the accused was last seen with the deceased, particularly when the time gap between the last seen stage and occurrence of death was so short, the accused must offer a plausible explanation about how he parted his company with the deceased, and it must be satisfactory.

While maintaining his conviction for the offences, including that of murder and under the provisions of the POCSO Act, the bench set aside the sentence of death for the offence under Section 302 (murder) and substituted it with the rigorous imprisonment for 25 years without remission.

While partly allowing the appeal, the bench set aside the Rs 20,000 fine imposed on him by the trial court, considering his socio-economic condition.

(Except for the headline, this story has not been edited by NDTV staff and is published from a syndicated feed.)