Allow Cookies!
By using our website, you agree to the use of cookies
The Trial Court had convicted the accused Rabbu alias Sarvesh in a Rape and Murder case. The accused and juvenile co-accused had raped and set ablaze the 16-year old girl. The session’s court had convicted under Section 450, 376(2) (i), 376(D), 376(A) of IPC and Section 5(g)/6 of the POCSO Act. The Hon’ble Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court comprising Justice PK Jaiswal and Justice BK Shrivatsava, having considered the records and DNA Material reports, upheld the conviction of the accused by the Sessions Court.
The Court explicitly said that every citizen should know that laws would not come to rescue of the accused on humanitarian reason. According to the court, Humanity is more in danger in the hands of the persons like the accused, and the bench observed that the act of the accused is of extreme immorality as the victim’s fault was only to believe the accused to be her well-wisher.
It is imperative to deter the potential offenders from committing such crimes against young girl children. Since such crimes shock the society as a whole; and therefore, citizens should know that the law would not come to the rescue of the accused on the basis of humanity. The death penalty would reduce the number of such crimes, and also send a message to the potential offenders that the judicial institutions have no soft corner in cases of like nature.
The gruesome crime committed by the accused against the victim merely for his satisfaction of lust is death, and favouring the accused on the humanitarian ground would set an unfair precedent. The Court said that the upsurge in the number of crimes of similar nature and the growing anger of the society necessitates the death penalty in the current backdrop. Hence, the court could not see any view beyond what was taken by the Sessions Court in this matter.
There is no requirement to postpone the hearing for sentence in each and every case, and therefore hearing regarding the sentence was on the same day. When the trial court asked him if there were any witnesses to prove his defence or he had got anything to say about his sentence. It is necessary to provide an opportunity to hear the accused on sentence when it may lead to death sentence.The Counsel neither sought time for hearing nor made any submission of evidence before the trial court. Therefore, the applicant was granted sufficient opportunity to prove his case. Hence, while dealing with the contention raised for postponing the hearing for a sentence of the accused, the High Court concluded the sentence of the accused along with the judgement on the same day.
86540
103860
630
114
59824