Madhya Pradesh: The Madhya Pradesh High Court on Thursday commuted the death sentence of a 20-year-old tribal man convicted of raping a 4-year-old girl, reducing it to 25 years of rigorous imprisonment. While acknowledging that the act was “brutal,” the Court held that it did not meet the threshold of “brutality” as defined in law to justify capital punishment. “In this case, no doubt that appellant’s act was brutal... but it is also clear that he has not committed brutality,” the Court observed, distinguishing between the two based on Supreme Court precedents.

The Division Bench of Justices Vivek Agarwal and Devnarayan Mishra maintained that although the incident was deeply disturbing, it lacked the exceptional cruelty or depravity needed to uphold a death sentence. The verdict, reported by News18, cites precedents from the Supreme Court in cases such as Manoharan v. State, Bhaggi v. State of MP, and Dhananjoy Chatterjee v. State of West Bengal, which establish a higher threshold for "brutality" in capital punishment cases.

Case Background

The convict, belonging to a Scheduled Tribe, had initially been sentenced to death by a trial court for abducting, raping, and attempting to murder a 4-year-old girl. The incident took place in a mango orchard, where the child was later found with life-threatening injuries. The trial court also noted that the victim had suffered permanent disability due to the assault.

The man had reportedly entered a hut under the pretext of asking for a cot and later abducted the girl from a neighbouring house. He was charged under multiple sections of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) including 450, 363, 376(a), 376AB, 307, and 201, as well as Sections 5 and 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act.

ALSO READ: Iran Opens Airspace For Evacuation Of Indians, 1000 Students To Return Tonight Under Operation Sindhu: Report

Defence counsel Samar Singh Rajpoot argued that the conviction was based entirely on circumstantial evidence and lacked direct witness testimony. He questioned the medical findings on permanent disability and claimed the evidence may have been fabricated post-arrest. He also cited mitigating factors such as the convict’s young age, tribal background, lack of prior criminal record, and difficult upbringing having left home young and working in a roadside eatery.

On the other side, Deputy Advocate General Yash Soni opposed the plea for leniency, emphasising the heinous nature of the crime and its impact on the minor victim. He insisted the prosecution had proven its case beyond reasonable doubt and that the act warranted the harshest punishment.

ALSO READ: ‘I Will Never Allow This’: Omar Abdullah On Proposed Canal To Redirect Surplus Water To Neighbouring States After IWT Suspension

What Did Court Rule?

The Court ruled that while the crime was indeed barbaric, the legal standards for “brutality” necessary for upholding a death sentence had not been met. The bench noted that medical testimony, particularly that of Dr. Rakesh Shukla, failed to clearly establish permanent disability or detail the extent of injuries.

Ultimately, the High Court upheld the man's conviction under all relevant sections, including aggravated rape under the POCSO Act, but altered the punishment. Instead of the death penalty, the convict will now serve 25 years of rigorous imprisonment without the possibility of remission. He was also fined Rs 10,000 under Section 6 of the POCSO Act, and in case of default, will undergo an additional year of rigorous imprisonment.