HC reduces death penalty to life imprisonment without remission for 25 years

Srinagar, Oct 18: The High Court of J&K and Ladakh has reduced the death sentence to life imprisonment without remission for a minimum of 25 years to four convicts for the gruesome rape and murder of a 14-year-old schoolgirl in north Kashmir’s Handwara area in 2007.

In 2015, Principal Sessions Court Kupwara sentenced to death four persons, Muhammad Sadiq Mir alias Sada of Langate Kupwara, Jehangir Ansari of Nawada Jungoo area of West Bengal, Azhar Ahmad Mir alias Billa of Shatapora Langate, and Suresh Kumar Sasi alias Mouchi of Rajasthan, at present Amritsar Punjab after they were found guilty for abduction, rape, and murder of a 14-year-old schoolgirl.

The trial court had called the offence “the rarest of rare” and observed that the convicts were a menace to society and to “conceal their evil deed, they had committed a drastic and extreme brutal act which has resulted in depriving the life of a minor who was helpless and innocent”.

The four convicts had challenged the trial court’s judgment dated April 18, 2015, in an appeal before the High Court through Advocate Ateeb Kanth.

“We are inclined to modify the sentence of death imposed by the trial court on the appellants (convicts) for commission of offence punishable under Section 302 RPC and instead sentence the appellants to imprisonment for life without remission for at least 25 years that is they should not be released for any reason, whatsoever, before serving the minimum sentence of 25 years,” a division bench of Justice Sanjeev Kumar and Justice M A Chowdhary said.

However, the bench held that the rest of the sentences imposed by the trial court would remain intact and those of imprisonment run concurrently with imprisonment for life.

“The trial court will issue a warrant for execution of sentences, in terms of this judgment,” it said.

Besides the death penalty for offences under Section 302/34 of the Ranbir Penal Code (RPC), now repealed, the convicts were sentenced to rigorous imprisonment of seven years for an offence punishable under Section 363/34 of the RPC.

They were also sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for 10 years for the offence punishable under Sections 376(G)/34 of the RPC.

In addition, they were sentenced to simple imprisonment of a month for offences punishable under Section 341/ 34 of the RPC.

The hapless minor girl was gang raped and killed in orchards near Batapora Wuder on July 20, 2007, when she was on her way from school to home.

Afterwards, the Police arrested four persons and filed a chargesheet following an investigation which culminated in their conviction and death penalty in 2015.

“Public opinion is difficult to fit in ‘rarest of the rare’ doctrine. People’s perception of crime is neither an objective circumstance relating to crime nor to the criminal,” the bench said. “Perception of the public is extraneous to conviction as also sentencing according to the Mandate of Bachan Singh (SC verdict).”

The court observed that the “public opinion may also run counter to rule of law and constitutionalism”. It said:  “There is also a danger of capital sentencing becoming a spectacle in the media. And if a media trial is a possibility, sentencing by media cannot be ruled out.”

The court noted that it was suffice to say that it does not dispute that the crime of rape and murder is always gruesome and abhorrent.

“However, having regard to the guidelines issued by the Supreme Court from time to time and explained in the case of Bachan Singh and Machi Singh, the case does not fall in the definition of ‘rarest of the rare case,” it said.

“We have not found anything on record to show the previous conviction of any of the appellants in the police record. The witnesses have orally referred to the registration of some cases for commission of minor offences but the prosecution has not placed on record any documentary evidence to substantiate the aforesaid aspect,” the court said.

It observed that nothing had been brought to its notice by the prosecution from which it could be inferred that convicts were a menace to the society.

The court said: “Merely saying so at the time of arguments, is not good enough to believe that there are no chances of appellants’ reformation.”