On Wednesday, 4th December, the Chhattisgarh High Court overturned a man’s death sentence for kidnapping, sexually assaulting, and murdering a seven-year-old child in the year 2021. The court commuted the death sentence because the convict belongs to a backward community, saying that there is a chance of him being reformed. While acknowledging the intensity of the crime, the Division Bench of Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha and Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad also claimed that the case did not meet the stringent ‘rarest of the rare’ standard required for imposing death penalty as detailed by the Supreme Court.
“These are the incriminating circumstances, but there is no evidence on record that the appellant cannot be reformed or rehabilitated as at the time of the offense he was aged about 29 years and he is a member of the Other Backward Class, thereby he belongs to the backward community and his chances of being reformed or rehabilitated cannot be ruled out,” the bench said.
On February 28th, 2021, the accused escorted the minor dead and her minor brother to a celebration after which he left the girl’s brother at the function and brought her along the railway track in Somni. The accused there had forced sexual intercourse with the minor following which he crushed her head with a huge stone. The accused then disposed of the dead body of the girl on the railway tracks to destroy evidence against him.
However, the incident later came to the fore after which an FIR was lodged against the accused identified as Dipak Baghel. The police launched an investigation into the case and based on evidence found Baghel guilty of rape and murder. The accused was then charged by the trial court under sections 302, 201, 363, and 366 of the IPC read with Section 6 of the POCSO Act, and was awarded a death sentence by the court.
The trial Court further sent the matter to the High Court under Section 366 of the CrPC for confirmation of the capital sentence. At the same time, the appellant filed an appeal under Section 374(2) of the CrPC, challenging the trial Court’s decision.
The High Court took into consideration all the evidence, DNA reports, and testimonies of the family of the victim and found the accused guilty of rape and murder. The court said, “Thus, after appreciating the entire ocular and medical evidence on record, we do not find any illegality in appreciation of oral, medical, and circumstantial evidence or arriving at a conclusion as to the guilt of the appellant by the trial Court warranting interference by this Court and we accordingly hereby confirm the conviction of the appellant recorded under Section 302 of the IPC.”
However, it further heard on the capital punishment of the accused saying that the trial court had committed an error in sentencing the appellant to the extreme penalty of death on the very same day. “The trial Court has not taken into consideration the probability of the appellant being reformed and rehabilitated and has only taken into consideration the crime and the manner in which it was committed and has not given the effective opportunity of hearing on the question of sentence to the appellant. No evidence was brought on record on behalf of the prosecution to prove to the Court that the appellant cannot be reformed or rehabilitated, by producing material about his conduct in jail, and no opportunity of hearing was given to the appellant to produce evidence in that respect,” it observed.
The Court reviewed the report provided by the jail authorities, which highlighted the appellant’s typical behavior while in custody and denied his involvement in any jail offenses. Therefore, taking such report, the appellant’s age, and his social background into account, the Bench concluded, “Though it shocks the consciousness of the society at large, yet, in the facts and circumstances of the case, considering the young age of the appellant, upon thoughtful consideration, we are of the view that extreme sentence of the death penalty is not warranted in the facts and circumstances of the case. We are of the opinion that this is not the rarest of rare cases in which a major penalty of sentence of death awarded has to be confirmed.”
