The Supreme Court while commuting the death sentence of a convict, who murdered and raped a four-year-old girl, to life imprisonment, observed that maximum punishment prescribed may not always be the determinative factor for repairing the crippled psyche of the offender.
A bench of Justices UU Lalit, S Ravindra Bhat and Bela M Trivedi commuted the capital punishment of the convict in a murder case to life imprisonment and in a rape case lessened his punishment to imprisonment for a period of twenty years instead of imprisonment for the remainder of his natural life.
The apex court observed in its judgement delivered on April 19 that an opportunity be given to the offender to repair the damage caused, and to become a socially useful individual, when he is released from the jail.
The judges while commuting also quoted famous author Oscar Wilde's - "only difference between the saint and the sinner is that every saint has a past and every sinner has a future".
"... We, while affirming the view taken by the courts below with regard to the conviction of the appellant for the offences charged against him, deem it proper to commute, and accordingly commute the sentence of death for the sentence of imprisonment for life, for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC. Since, Section 376A IPC is also applicable to the facts of the case, considering the gravity and seriousness of the offence, the sentence of imprisonment for the remainder of appellant's natural life would have been an appropriate sentence, however, we are reminded of what Oscar Wilde has said - "The only difference between the saint and the sinner is that every saint has a past and every sinner has a future"," stated the verdict.
The top court in its judgement stated, "One of the basic principles of restorative justice as developed by this Court over the years, also is to give an opportunity to the offender to repair the damage caused, and to become a socially useful individual, when he is released from the jail. The maximum punishment prescribed may not always be the determinative factor for repairing the crippled psyche of the offender."
"Hence, while balancing the scales of retributive justice and restorative justice, we deem it appropriate to impose upon the appellant-accused, the sentence of imprisonment for a period of twenty years instead of imprisonment for the remainder of his natural life for the offence under section 376A, IPC. The conviction and sentence recorded by the courts below for the other offences under IPC and POCSO Act are affirmed. It is needless to say that all the punishments imposed shall run concurrently," it added.
As per the case, on April 17, 2013, a four-year-old girl was raped in a village in Seoni district of Madhya Pradesh and later died in a hospital in Maharashtra.
The girl was raped by a 35-year-old Mohd Firoz in Ghansour town, after which he dumped her at a farm. The girl's parents found her unconscious the next morning and she was taken to Netaji Subhash Chandra Medical College and Hospital in Jabalpur, however, the girl was brought to Nagpur by an air ambulance and admitted to Care Hospital in Ramdaspeth area, where she died.
Feroz, who worked in a private power plant in Madhya Pradesh, was arrested from Hussainabad area of Bihar's Bhagalpur district.
The trial court had awarded the death sentence to the accused Firoz for the offence under section 302 of IPC and life imprisonment for rape. He later approached the High Court which dismissed his appeal and confirmed the death sentence. The convict approached the apex court against the death sentence.
The apex court also observed, "As demonstrated earlier, once again one of the most barbaric and ugly human faces has surfaced. A tiny bud like girl was smothered by the appellant before she could blossom in this world. The monstrous acts of the appellant suffocated the victim to such an extent that she had no option but to leave this world. Once again, all the Constitutional guarantees have failed to protect the victim from the clutches of the demonizing acts of the appellant."
"In the opinion of the Court, any sympathy shown to the appellant would lead to miscarriage of justice. However, it has been brought to the notice of this Court that in series of judgements, this Court has not treated such case as the rarest of rare case."
( With inputs from ANI )
Disclaimer: This post has been auto-published from an agency feed without any modifications to the text and has not been reviewed by an editor