Case name : Sambhubhai Raisangbhai Padiyar v. State of Gujarat
On Tuesday, the Supreme Court mitigated the death sentence for a man found guilty of killing and sexually assaulting a four-year-old boy and instead mandated that he serve a harsh 25-year jail term without the possibility of parole.
A three-judge panel consisting of Justices BR Gavai, Aravind Kumar, and KV Viswanathan concluded that it is impossible to completely rule out the prospect of the convicted person’s reformation. In this context, the Court noted that the convicted individual had expressed regret for his offense based on a mental health assessment. The Court further stated that although the convict’s offense was of a demonic nature, the case did not qualify as “rarest of rare” enough to justify the death punishment.
There is no question that the appellant’s crime was of a demonic kind. We maintain that the potential of reformation is not entirely ruled out in the current situation, taking into account all relevant facts and circumstances. Additionally, the possibility of life in jail is not excluded. According to the Court, the case does not qualify as one of the rarest of rare cases. As a result, it overturned the conviction’s death sentence.
It also concluded that a life sentence, which would essentially be equivalent to fourteen years in prison, was insufficient punishment in this instance after taking into account a few other criteria. As a result, the Court replaced the death penalty with a severe 25-year prison sentence without the possibility of release.
The man in front of the court was found guilty of the 2016 murder and sexual abuse of a 4-year-old kid. Behind a Dargah, the child’s nude body was discovered next to a lake. His wounds suggested that he had been sexually assaulted. In the case, a neighborhood man who was saw with the boy just before he vanished was taken into custody. In addition to offenses under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offenses Act, 2012 (POCSO Act), he was charged with murder and sexual assault under the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
A trial court found him guilty of the crime and sentenced him to death. This verdict was upheld by the Gujarat High Court as well, given the heinous nature of the crime. Aggrieved, the convict preferred an appeal before the apex court which upheld the conviction after examining the evidence on record. The Supreme Court held that there was sufficient and complete circumstantial evidence to prove that the appellant was guilty of the crime. However, the Court decided to commute the convict’s death penalty after factoring in that the he was only twenty-four years when the incident took place, and that he had no criminal antecedents.
In addition, the Bench observed that he had an intellectual handicap, moderate psychotic symptoms, and a low socioeconomic background. The Court went on to note that a life sentence, which, according to Indian law, typically lasts for fourteen years before a prisoner is eligible for remission, was insufficient punishment in this particular case. As an alternative punishment, it has mandated that the convicted individual serve 25 years in jail without the possibility of release.
Considering the nature of the offense, we firmly believe that a life sentence, which typically equates to 14 years in prison, would be egregiously excessive and insufficient, even though the appellant’s case does not fit into the rarest of rare categories. Given the nature of the offense, the Court stated that a sentence of imprisonment for a predetermined amount of time without the possibility of release would be appropriate in light of the crime and would not compromise public trust in the effectiveness of the legal system.