(adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle || []).push({});
Holding that it did not fall in the rarest of rare category, the Supreme Court on Tuesday commuted the death sentence awarded to a man convicted of sexually assaulting and killing a four-year-old minor boy in 2016 and substituted it with a 25-year imprisonment without remission.
“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…a sentence of imprisonment for a period of 25 years without remission would be a just dessert,” a three-judge Bench of Justices BR Gavai, Aravind Kumar and KV Viswanathan said.
The convict, Sambhubhai Raisangbhai Padhiyar, had kidnapped the four-year-old boy, sexually assaulted and murdered him in April, 2016, in Gujarat’s Bharuch district.
While describing the crime as diabolical, the Bench took note of the mitigating circumstances and noted that the possibility of reformation of the convict was completely ruled out.
“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 case does not fall in the category of rarest of rare case,” the Bench said, commuting the death penalty of convict Padhiyar.
The order came on Padhiyar’s petition challenging the Gujarat High Court’s April 2019 verdict confirming his conviction and death sentence awarded by a trial court for murder and certain provisions of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012.
Writing the verdict for the Bench, Justice Viswanathan said, “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 mitigation investigation report filed before the top court showed the convict was 24-years of age at the time of the crime without any criminal antecedents and hailed from a low socio-economic household.
Partly allowing his appeal, the top court also set aside the Rs 20,000 fine imposed on him by the trial court in view of his socio-economic condition.
(adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle || []).push({});