The Supreme Court of India has commuted the death sentence of a man convicted for the brutal murder and sexual assault of a four-year-old boy in Gujarat. The Court acknowledged that while the crime was “diabolic in character,” it did not meet the criteria for the “rarest of rare” cases, and ruled that the convict’s possibility of reformation could not be entirely dismissed. As a result, the Court has ordered the convict to serve 25 years of rigorous imprisonment without remission.
A three-judge Bench comprising Justices BR Gavai, Aravind Kumar, and KV Viswanathan, delivered the verdict in the case of Sambhubhai Raisangbhai Padiyar v. State of Gujarat. The Court emphasized that the convict, despite the heinous nature of his crime, had shown remorse, supported by a mental health evaluation. This remorse and the possibility of reformation led the Court to reconsider the death penalty.
The Court stated, “Without doubt, the crime committed by the appellant was diabolic in character. Considering the overall facts and circumstances, we hold that the present is not a case where it can be said that the possibility of reformation is completely ruled out.”
The convict had been found guilty of murdering and sexually assaulting a young boy in 2016. The child’s body was discovered near a lake behind a Dargah, with signs of sexual abuse. The man, who was seen with the child before his disappearance, was arrested and later sentenced to death by a trial court. This decision was upheld by the Gujarat High Court.
However, in his appeal to the Supreme Court, the convict’s sentence was revisited. The Bench considered several factors, including the convict’s age (24 at the time of the crime), lack of previous criminal history, and his socio-economic background. It also took into account his moderate psychotic features and intellectual disability, though he was found to be free of psychiatric issues at present.
The Court ruled that a life sentence, which typically results in 14 years of actual imprisonment under Indian law, would be grossly inadequate in this case. It was decided that the convict would serve 25 years of imprisonment without the possibility of remission. The Bench noted, “Even though the case of the appellant falls short of the rarest of rare category, 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.”
Case: Sambhubhai Raisangbhai Padiyar vs State of Gujarat – Available on LAWFYI.IO
