The Supreme Court on Wednesday upheld the death sentence awarded to an accused for rape and brutal murder of a four-year-old minor girl in Mumbai.
A three-judge Bench of Justices Dipak Misra, Rohinton Nariman and Uday Lalit said when the crime was diabolical in nature and shocked the judicial and collective conscience of society awarding death sentence was the suitable punishment.
Writing the judgment Justice Misra said “We are absolutely conscious that Judges while imposing sentence, should never be swayed away with any kind of individual philosophy and predilections. It should never have the flavour of Judge-centric attitude or perception. It has to satisfy the test laid down in various precedents relating to rarest of the rare case.”
The Bench said “the rape of a minor girl child is nothing but a monstrous burial of her dignity in the darkness. It is a crime against the holy body of a girl child and the soul of the society and such a crime is aggravated by the manner in which it has been committed. The nature of the crime and the manner in which it has been committed speaks about its uncommonness. The crime speaks of depravity, degradation and uncommonality. It is diabolical and barbaric.”
The bench pointed out that accused by alluring a minor girl of four years for giving chocolates, had kidnapped her, raped her and caused injuries resulting in her death. The appellant Vasanta Sampat Dupare was awarded death sentence by a trial court in Maharashtra and this was confirmed by the Bombay High Court. The present appeal is directed against this judgment.
Dismissing the appeal then Bench said “the barbaric act of the appellant does not remotely show any concern for the precious life of a young minor child who had really not seen life. The criminality of the conduct of the appellant is not only depraved and debased, but can have a menacing effect on the society. It is calamitous. we find that each of the incriminating circumstances has been clearly established and the chain of circumstances are conclusive in nature to exclude any kind of hypothesis, but the one proposed to be proved, and lead to a definite conclusion that the crime was committed by the accused. Therefore, we have no hesitation in affirming the judgment of conviction rendered by the learned trial Judge and affirmed by the High Court.”
