‘Maximum Punishment Not Always Determining Factor’: SC Commutes Death Sentence of Rape Convict

The top court said there are other ways of “repairing the crippled psyche of the offender” than handing out the maximum punishment prescribed.

A view of Supreme Court of India in New Delhi. Credit: PTI

New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Tuesday commuted the death sentence of a man who was convicted of raping a four-year-old girl to life imprisonment, saying there are other ways of “repairing the crippled psyche of the offender” than handing out the maximum punishment prescribed.

The court said it was balancing the scales of retributive justice and restorative justice, deeming it appropriate to sentence the convict to 20 years of imprisonment instead of imprisonment for the remainder of his natural life.

According to LiveLaw, the case deals with a man, Feroz, who was convicted by the trial court of raping and murdering a four-year-old in April 2013. The trial court found him guilty of several offences. He was sentenced to death under Section 302 (murder) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC); to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 7 years and pay a fine of Rs 2,000 for the offence under Section 363 (kidnapping); to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 10 years and pay a fine of Rs 2,000 for the offence under Section 366 (abducting a woman in order that she may be forced or seduced to illicit intercourse) and to undergo life imprisonment and pay a fine of Rs 2,000 for the offences under sections 376 (rape) read with certain sections of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act.

Also Read: Seven Reasons Why We Shouldn’t Demand the Death Penalty for Rape

The high court confirmed the death penalty and turned down the convict’s appeal. Feroz then approached the Supreme Court.

Dealing with the petition, the Supreme Court acknowledged that though the prosecution’s case was based on circumstantial evidence, it had proved beyond reasonable doubt that all other hypotheses except the guilt of the convict could be ruled out.

“It was duly proved that while committing the barbaric acts of rape and sexual assault on the young child-victim aged about 04 years, the appellant-accused had inflicted bodily injuries as mentioned in the post-mortem report which had caused her death,” the bench of Justices U.U. Lalit, S. Ravindra Bhat and Bela M. Trivedi wrote.

The court affirmed the trial court’s order convicting Feroz of offences punishable under sections 302, 376(2)(i), 376(2)(m), 363, 366 of the IPC and section 5(i) read with section 6 and section 5(m) read with section 6 of the POCSO Act.

However, coming to the question of the death penalty, the judges deemed it proper to commute it to life imprisonment. The court observed that since punishment for rape is also applicable to the convict and “considering the gravity and seriousness of the offence”, the sentence of imprisonment for the remainder of his natural life would have been appropriate.

The judges added:

“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.’ 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.”

The judge said, while balancing the scales of retributive justice and restorative justice, it would be appropriate to sentence the convict to imprisonment for a period of 20 years instead of imprisonment for the remainder of his natural life for the offence under section 376A of the IPC. The conviction and sentence recorded by the courts for the other offences under the IPC and POCSO Act were also affirmed by the court, adding that the punishments imposed shall run concurrently.

While several governments have passed laws that provide for the death penalty in rape cases, civil society members have argued against using capital punishment as a deterrent against sexual violence. The Supreme Court has also often made the case for reformation rather than retribution, reiterating that the doctrine “rarest of rare” doctrine cannot be applied broadly.