In a significant ruling, the Allahabad High Court has commuted the death penalty of a man convicted for the rape and murder of a minor child to rigorous life imprisonment. The court upheld the conviction but altered the sentence, emphasizing the absence of a premeditated mind and the convict's lack of criminal history.
Court's Rationale for Commuting the Sentence
A division bench comprising Justices Rajnish Kumar and Rajeev Singh delivered the judgment on November 18, 2025. While acknowledging the crime as "heinous", the bench explicitly stated that the act was not committed with a pre-meditated mind. Furthermore, the court noted that the convict, who was 27 years old and a father of a minor child himself at the time of the incident, had no prior criminal record.
The bench observed, "There is no criminal history of the convict and there is no evidence that the offence was committed with a pre-meditated mind. This Court is of the view that the death penalty is liable to be commuted to life imprisonment till the natural life of the convict/appellant without remission." This means the convict will spend the rest of his natural life in prison with no chance of early release or remission.
Background of the Case and Legal Arguments
The tragic incident dates back to February 16, 2021, when a minor girl went missing and was later found dead. The investigation revealed that the toddler was last seen in the company of the convict. Following this, an FIR was lodged, and the man was subsequently convicted by the trial court for offences under:
- Section 376 (rape) of the IPC
- Section 302 (murder) of the IPC
- Section 364 (kidnapping or abducting in order to murder) of the IPC
- Section 6 (aggravated penetrative sexual assault) of the POCSO Act, 2012
The trial court had awarded him the death sentence. However, during the appeal in the High Court, the convict's advocate, Rajesh Kumar Dwivedi, argued that his client was falsely implicated due to enmity. He also pointed out discrepancies in the FIR and an inordinate delay in its filing. On the other hand, the state, represented by Government Advocate Dr. VK Singh and Additional Government Advocate Raj Deep Singh, contended that the brutal nature of the crime warranted the death penalty.
A Precedent in Sentencing
The High Court's judgment delves into the principles of sentencing in capital punishment cases. The bench remarked that while the death penalty can be awarded in the "rarest of rare" cases based on circumstantial evidence, life imprisonment without remission is the norm unless a death sentence is absolutely unavoidable.
Critically, the court highlighted a procedural lapse by the trial court, noting that it had passed the death sentence without considering crucial reports from a probation officer, jail administration, or a psychologist. This omission was a key factor in the High Court's decision to re-evaluate the sentence and commute it to life imprisonment, ensuring the convict remains behind bars for life while adhering to a more thorough judicial process.
