Madras High Court modifies convict’s death sentence into life imprisonment for sexually abusing his minor daughter

Summary AI

Division Bench says, it is not a rarest of rare case warranting imposition of capital punishment & there was nothing on record to prove that the convict is a menace to the society with no possibility of reformation

Published - November 21, 2023 11:28 pm IST - CHENNAI

The Hindu Bureau

The Madras High Court on Tuesday modified from death to life the sentence imposed on a convict for having sexually abused his minor daughter from the age of seven to 12 years when she attained puberty and thereafter subjecting her to penetrative sexual assault leading to pregnancy and forced miscarriage.

📌 What Happened

• The Madras High Court modified the death sentence earlier imposed on a man who had been convicted of sexually abusing his minor daughter and upheld his conviction under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act.

⚖️ High Court’s Reasoning

• The court noted that although the crime was heinous and serious, it did not qualify as a “rarest of rare” case under Indian law — the strict standard required for the death penalty. Therefore, the High Court commuted the sentence from death to life imprisonment.

• The “rarest of rare” doctrine comes from Supreme Court precedents that say the death penalty should be imposed only in exceptional circumstances where the alternative of life imprisonment is clearly inadequate.

🧑‍⚖️ Other Orders

• In related orders, the High Court also reviewed sentences of other family members connected to the case (in some reports, the mother’s conviction or sentence was varied or quashed on appeal).

📝 Legal Context

• Under the POCSO Act, aggravated penetrative sexual assault against a minor is among the most serious offences and can result in severe punishments including death or life imprisonment.

📍 Key Takeaways

• Conviction upheld — the court maintained that the evidence supported guilt.

• Sentence reduced — the death penalty was changed to life imprisonment, following legal standards that reserve capital punishment for only the most exceptional cases.

Source: https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/tamil-nadu/madras-high-court-modifies-convicts-death-sentence-into-life-imprisonment-for-sexually-abusing-his-minor-daughter/article67558999.ece

Uttar Pradesh - Supreme Court says prior conviction cannot be sole ground to impose death penalty; commutes murder convict's sentence

 Summary AI

🧑‍⚖️ Who was involved

• Accused: Madan (appellant) — originally sentenced to death for murder.

• Co-accused: Sudesh Pal and Ishwar were also convicted in the same case.

📍 What the case was about

• The offences arose from an incident of indiscriminate firing on a group of people in Muzaffarnagar, Uttar Pradesh on 14 October 2003.

• The firing occurred after local panchayat election rivalry — Madan and others were on one side, and the victims were associated with the rival camp. Some victims were supporters or relatives of the winning candidates.

• Six people were killed in the incident.

🏛 Trial court & High Court decisions

• The trial court convicted Madan and co-accused for murder under various sections of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced Madan and Sudesh Pal to death, while others received life sentences or lesser punishments.

• The Allahabad High Court later confirmed Madan’s death sentence, though it commuted Sudesh Pal’s death penalty to life imprisonment. 

⚖️ Case Outcome

• A three-judge bench (Justices B.R. Gavai, B.V. Nagarathna & Prashant Kumar Mishra) heard appeals from Madan and Sudesh Pal.

• The Supreme Court upheld Madan’s conviction for murder but commuted his death penalty to life imprisonment (to be served without remission for at least 20 years).

• The Court held that the High Court erred in keeping Madan’s death sentence while commuting Sudesh Pal’s, because the only distinguishing factor was that Madan had a prior conviction. The Supreme Court said a prior conviction alone cannot be the sole basis for imposing the death penalty.

• The Court emphasised that under Indian law the “rarest of rare” doctrine must be applied — meaning the death penalty should only be imposed when the crime’s circumstances truly demand it, and that mitigating factors (like potential for reform) must be considered. 

• The Supreme Court of India commuted the death sentence of a man convicted of murder to life imprisonment, holding that a defendant’s prior criminal conviction alone cannot be the sole basis for imposing the death penalty.

🧠 Legal Reasoning

• The Court emphasised that just because a person has a criminal history (prior conviction), that fact by itself does not automatically justify the death penalty.

• Instead, courts must carefully weigh all aggravating and mitigating factors in a case before deciding on capital punishment. This includes evaluating:

  • The nature and gravity of the offence

  • The individual’s background

  • The possibility of reform or rehabilitation

📌 Broader Legal Principle

• This decision aligns with the established “rarest of rare” doctrine in Indian law: the death penalty should be reserved only for cases where there is no reasonable possibility of reform, and the circumstances are truly exceptional. A mere history of prior wrongdoing does not automatically make a case fall into that category.

🧾 Key Takeaway

• The Supreme Court reaffirmed that capital punishment requires nuanced judicial assessment, not just a mechanical reliance on prior convictions. Life imprisonment can be a more appropriate penalty when mitigating factors suggest potential for reform.

Source: https://www.barandbench.com/news/supreme-court-commutes-death-sentence-murder-accused-prior-conviction-not-sole-ground-death?utm_source=chatgpt.com