The division judge bench of the Jharkhand High Court held that Victimology is not all about victim compensation, which cannot be a recompense for valuable life lost to crime. It is also to inflict punishment proportionate to the nature and gravity of the offence. We will fail the victim and society if capital punishment is not awarded in such cases. The court confirmed the death sentence awarded by the trial court to the accused involved for the offence registered under Sections 302, 376, 449, and 201 of the IPC.
Brief Facts:
The factual matrix of the case is that the victim was 19 years old at the time of the incident and she had gone to attend her class at RTC Institute of Technology and informant went along with her to drop her and then, the informant returned home. After attending classes, the victim returned home to Booti Basti and she was all alone. The next morning, when the daughter of the informant tried to contact the victim, she found that her mobile phone was switched off. Thereafter, she contacted the wife of Anil Kumar Singh and requested her to get the information regarding the victim as her mobile was switched off. When the wife of Anil Kumar Singh went to the house, she found that the door was open, smoke billowing from the room and inside victim was in burnt condition. The bed and mattress over it were on fire and this information was given to the informant on the telephone. Then, the informant reached the house and he found his daughter lying in a burnt condition. The FIR was registered under Sections 448, 302, 201, 328, 376, 511/34 of the IPC. After the investigation, the chargesheet was filed under Sections 302, 376, 449, and 201 of the IPC against the appellant. The trial court convicted the accused and awarded a death sentence to the accused. Aggrieved by this, the present appeal is filed.
Contentions of the Appellant:
The Appellant contended that the case is based upon the circumstantial eviction and it is well-settled law that in order to prove the charge on the basis of circumstantial evidence, the chain of circumstance should be complete in such a manner as to unerringly point towards the guilt of the accused, without leaving any hypothesis compatible with his innocence. It was furthermore contended that the accused is a 25-year-old young boy and has no previous criminal conviction against him.
The Appellant relied upon the judgments titled Rajendra Prahlad Rao Wasnik Versus the State of Maharashtra, and Ram Deo Prasad Versus State of Bihar.
Contentions of the State:
The State contended that the appellant is a history-sheeter and under Sections 376 and 380 of the IPC and Section 66/66A of the I.T. Act. He was facing trial and once enlarged on provisional bail absconded. There were other cases also pending against him. It was furthermore contended that considering the gravity of the offence and the barbaric manner of the execution, the death sentence should be awarded.
Observations of the court:
The Hon’ble Court observed that this case involves a brutal rape and murder that appears to be the work of a highly skilled criminal. It was not a crime of passion but one that was meticulously planned and executed. The evidence shows that the appellant stalked the victim, attempted to rent a room in her house, and then stayed at a nearby temple complex. He waited until the victim was alone at her home before committing the crime and subsequently fled the scene. His flight from the crime scene is significant under Section 8 of the Evidence Act, and since he has not provided any explanation for this, it warrants a negative inference against him. The circumstances have been firmly established through eyewitness testimony, and the appellant has failed to provide a credible explanation for these circumstances, instead offering false responses that further implicate him. Additionally, the DNA profile from the vaginal swab matches the appellant’s blood sample.
The court furthermore observed that deterrence is one of the accepted objects of penal law along with other objects like reformation and prevention of crime. Guidelines for inflicting capital punishment have been settled by a long line of judicial precedents. The court relied upon the judgments titled Vikram Singh @ Vicky & Another Versus Union of India & Others, Machhi Singh Versus State of Punjab, Bachan Singh Versus State of Punjab, and Sushil Murmu Versus State of Jharkhand.
The court noted that this is not the first case of the accused as previously also he had raped a minor girl and even filmed the incident to make it viral. Once he got bail, he absconded. He was also involved in a number of cases of theft of mobiles, computers, and other electronic goods which were instituted against him at Patna, Lucknow, and Ranchi. In most of these cases, he was charge-sheeted. The conduct of the appellant does not reflect a semblance of remorse or any hope for reform.
The court furthermore noted that victimology encompasses more than just providing compensation for victims, which cannot truly make up for the loss of a valuable life. It also involves administering punishment that is proportional to the severity and nature of the crime. If capital punishment is not applied in such cases, we will be failing both the victim and society.
Based on these considerations, the court confirmed the death sentence awarded to the accused by the learned court below.
The decision of the court:
With the above direction, the court dismissed the criminal appeal.
Case Title: The State of Jharkhand V. Rahul Kumar
Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ananda Sen, and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Gautam Kumar Choudhary
Case No.: Death Reference (D.B.) No.06 of 2019 With Criminal Appeal (D.B.) No. 180 of 2020
Advocates for the Appellant: Mr. R.S. Mazumdar, Sr. Advocate Mr. Rohan Mazumdar, Advocate
Advocate for the State: Ms. Priya Shrestha, Special P.P
Advocate for the State: Mr. Anil Kumar, ASGI
Read Judgment @Latestlaws.com
Picture Source : https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Jharkhand_High_Court.jpg
