On Tuesday, the Supreme Court commuted the death sentence of a man convicted for the brutal murder and sexual assault of a four-year-old boy. Instead, the Court imposed a sentence of 25 years of rigorous imprisonment without remission in the case of Sambhubhai Raisangbhai Padiyar v. State of Gujarat.
The three-judge bench, consisting of Justices BR Gavai, Aravind Kumar, and KV Viswanathan, examined various factors in its decision. While acknowledging the horrendous nature of the crime, the Court ruled that it did not meet the “rarest of rare” threshold required for the death penalty. The bench referred to the mental health evaluation of the convict, which indicated that he had shown remorse for his actions and that the possibility of his reformation could not be entirely dismissed.
The Court pointed out that the convict was only 24 years old at the time of the crime, had no previous criminal record, and came from an underprivileged socio-economic background. The Court also considered the fact that the convict had exhibited moderate psychotic features and had an intellectual disability. However, a report indicated that he did not have any psychiatric issues at the time of the trial.
While the Court accepted the gravity of the crime, it emphasized that a life sentence, typically serving 14 years in India before remission is granted, would be inadequate given the nature of the offense. The bench noted, “Even though the case of the appellant falls short of the rarest of rare categories, considering the nature of the crime, we are strongly of the view that a sentence of life imprisonment, which normally works out for 14 years, would be grossly disproportionate and inadequate.”
The bench concluded that a 25-year rigorous imprisonment sentence without remission was more fitting to punish the convict and serve the interest of justice while not undermining public confidence in the legal system. The judgment emphasized the importance of balancing the severity of the crime with the convict’s potential for rehabilitation.
The case originated from the tragic murder and sexual assault of a four-year-old boy in 2016, whose body was found near a lake behind a Dargah, showing clear signs of sexual assault. The man, a resident who was seen with the child before his disappearance, was arrested and charged under the Indian Penal Code (IPC) for murder and sexual assault, as well as under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act (POCSO Act). The trial court convicted him and sentenced him to death. This decision was upheld by the Gujarat High Court, recognizing the heinous nature of the crime.
However, following an appeal to the Supreme Court, the justices found sufficient circumstantial evidence to uphold the conviction but commuted the death penalty. The Court considered the convict’s age, lack of criminal history, and the psychological factors that may have played a role in his actions. In its judgment, the Court stressed that while the crime was appalling, the possibility of rehabilitation and reform could not be entirely excluded.
The decision ultimately reflects a careful judicial approach, ensuring that the punishment fits the crime while still acknowledging the need for potential rehabilitation and the individual circumstances of the convict. Senior Advocate Uttara Babbar represented the appellant, while Advocate Swati Ghildiyal appeared for the State of Gujarat.
