Opportunity for Rehabilitation Must Be Given: Uttarakhand High Court Commutes Death Sentence in Child Rape Case

The court commutes death sentence to 20 years rigorous imprisonment, highlighting the potential for reform and mitigating factors.
The High Court of Uttarakhand has commuted the death sentence of Janak Bahadur, convicted of raping and assaulting his 5-year-old step-sister, to 20 years of rigorous imprisonment. The court, comprising Chief Justice Ritu Bahri and Justice Alok Kumar Verma, underscored the significance of rehabilitation and potential for reform while acknowledging the gravity of the crime.
The court emphasized the consistency and credibility of the victim’s testimony, supported by medical evidence. The judgment noted, “The testimony of the victim is absolutely trustworthy,” with the victim’s account being corroborated by medical reports detailing injuries consistent with sexual assault. The court further referenced that the testimony was consistent across various stages, including during the medical examination and court proceedings.
Addressing the defense’s argument on the lack of forensic evidence, the court cited the Supreme Court’s precedent in Sunil v. State of Madhya Pradesh, asserting that while positive DNA results can be clinching, the absence of such evidence does not negate the weight of the victim’s testimony and other corroborative evidence.
In assessing the appellant’s background, the court considered his age, lack of prior criminal record, socio-economic conditions, and family responsibilities. “The appellant is a 34-35 years old laborer with two young children to care for, having no prior criminal record,” the judgment highlighted. These factors were pivotal in the decision to commute the death sentence to a term of 20 years.
The court extensively discussed the principles surrounding the imposition of the death penalty, referencing the “rarest of rare” doctrine established by the Supreme Court in Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab and subsequent cases. “Life imprisonment is the general rule and death sentence an exception which may be imposed in rarest of rare cases,” the judgment reiterated. The court concluded that the possibility of rehabilitation and the absence of any evidence indicating that the appellant would be a continuing threat to society warranted the commutation of the death sentence.
Justice Alok Kumar Verma remarked, “It is not just the crime which the Court is to take into consideration, but also the criminal, the state of his mind, his socio-economic background, etc. Awarding death sentence is an exception, and life imprisonment is the rule.”
The High Court’s decision to commute the death sentence to rigorous imprisonment for 20 years underscores the judiciary’s commitment to balancing justice with the principles of rehabilitation and reform. This landmark judgment not only affirms the gravity of the crime but also sets a significant precedent for considering mitigating factors in the sentencing of similar cases. By addressing both the heinous nature of the crime and the potential for the convict’s reformation, the court has provided a nuanced perspective on the application of capital punishment in India.

Date of Decision: May 21, 2024