The Madhya Pradesh Excessive Courtroom has commuted the dying sentence awarded to a person convicted of aggravated penetrative sexual assault and homicide of a two-year-old woman, observing that the opportunity of his reform and rehabilitation can’t be dominated out. [2026 LiveLaw (MP) 352]
Emphasizing that “human life is a treasured reward of god”, the bench of Justice Vivek Agarwal and Justice Avanindra Kumar Singh directed;
“When taking this reality into consideration that there isn’t a prison historical past of the appellant, he’s already handled as an out caste within the society solely on account of performing marriage in one other caste and he being not a steady risk to society, there being no proof of he being an expert or recurring offender, age of the accused and the truth that there may be risk of reformation or/and rehabilitation on the age of 32 years can’t be dominated out, put up incarceration conduct and risk of reform, then appellant can’t be handled to be a menace to the society requiring ‘rarest of uncommon’ punishment within the matter. We’re additionally aware that human life is a treasured reward of God subsequently within the info and circumstances of this cse and legislation laid by Hon’ble Supreme Courtroom we discover that life shouldn’t be taken away flippantly from appellant. Thus, partly permitting the attraction, we commute sentence from dying to considered one of life imprisonment for a minimum of 25 years with none remission”.
Three prison appeals and a prison reference have been filed in opposition to the order of the Particular Choose beneath the POCSO Act, convicting and sentencing the appellant for homicide (Part 302), inflicting disappearance of proof (Part 201) and prison intimidation (Part 506 Half II) of the IPC and for aggravated penetrative sexual assault (Part 5m) of the POCSO Act. He was sentenced to the dying penalty, whereas two different accused individuals have been convicted and sentenced beneath Part 506 IPC.
Per the prosecution’s case, a case was lodged within the FIR based mostly on the statements of the sufferer’s mom that the appellant, whereas residing in the home, had assaulted the sufferer. It was contended that the incident occurred whereas the mom was out attending the marriage with the appellant’s spouse. When the mom returned, she discovered accidents on the nostril, throat, and cheeks of the sufferer, who was mendacity unconscious.
When the mom requested the appellant, he was drunk and said that he had slapped the sufferer as she was crying, and he needed to place her to sleep. It was additionally said that the appellant had threatened to report the matter. The sufferer was then taken to the hospital.
Per the postmortem examination, the report discovered a cranium fracture, vaginal and anal accidents. The report said that the forceful penetration, together with head and face accidents, resulted within the dying of the kid sufferer.
Thereafter, on March 8, 2023, the appellant was taken into custody, and essential articles have been seized, together with bedsheets and the sufferer’s decrease clothes. After analyzing the proof and statements of the witnesses, the Trial Courtroom held the case to be a ‘rarest of uncommon’ case and sentenced him to the dying penalty.
The counsel for the appellant contended that there have been a number of contradictions within the proof. Counting on the final seen concept, it was argued that at greatest, the appellant might be convicted beneath Part 506 and Part 201 of the IPC.
The court docket didn’t intervene with the appellant’s conviction and held that the proof was adequate to maintain the findings beneath Sections 302, 201, and 506 Half II of the IPC and Part 5(m) of the POCSO Act.
Contemplating the problem of whether or not the dying penalty was justified, the bench famous that there must be an examination of aggravating and mitigating circumstances.
The bench famous that aggressive penetrative sexual assault was proved. Nevertheless, the court docket discovered important mitigating circumstances, together with the truth that the appellant had no earlier prison antecedents, was aged 32 years, and belonged to a rural and economically weaker background, had proven irregular conduct in incarceration, and had a spouse and two minor kids depending on him.
The court docket additionally thought of the report of Sub Jail, which recorded that the appellant’s conduct throughout incarceration was regular and had not dedicated any act of indiscipline. The court docket additionally famous the appellant’s poor monetary situation and unstable financial standing.
The bench additional famous that the appellant confronted social isolation after marrying outdoors his caste, and there was no materials to ascertain that he was an expert or recurring offender or posed a seamless risk to society.
Accordingly, the bench commuted the dying penalty of the appellant to life imprisonment.
Case Title: In Reference v R CRIMINAL REFERENCE CAPITAL No. 1 of 2026
Quotation: 2026 LiveLaw (MP) 352
For State: Authorities Advocate Manas Mani Verma
For Appellant: Senior Advocate Aditya Adhikari
Amicus Curiae: Advocates Nitin Gupta and Anannya Shree Adhikari
