Judiciary cannot be expected to be a mute spectator: Bombay HC upholds death penalty to rape convict

Upholding the death penalty awarded to a person convicted of raping and murdering a young woman in 2014, the Bombay High Court has asserted that it cannot be a “mute spectator” in the face of growing instances of sexual offences against women..The judgement was delivered by Justices Ranjit V More and Bharati H Dangre. .Raising concerns over the safety of women in the country, the judgment authored by Justice Dangre states,.“The judiciary cannot be expected to be a mute spectator in the entire scenario when neither a young girl child of two years or a women of 70 years feel safe in this country. We cannot shut our eyes to the cases reported day in and day out about such young girls and women being raped and victimized.”.The Court was dealing with the case of a man convicted of raping and murdering a young woman “in an abhorrent, grotesque and pervert manner“..The victim was raped and murdered in January 2014 near the Eastern Expressway, Mumbai. She was kidnapped by the accused from Lokmanya Tilak Terminus Station at 5:30 am, on the pretext of dropping her at her hostel and thereafter taken to a lonely place behind the bushes on Mumbai Thane Service Road. After committing rape on the victim, the accused murdered her and burned her body to destroy the evidence..On conclusion of the trial, the Sessions Court delivered its verdict in October 2015, and sentenced the accused to death, after convicting him for offences punishable under Sections 302, 364, 366, 376(2)(m), 376A, 392 r/w Section 397 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860..The Court acknowledged that when cases that shock the collective conscience of the society are brought on trial, the judiciary is expected to deal with the offender sternly..“It (society) may demand to inflict punishment no less than death penalty irrespective of its personal opinion about the desirability or otherwise of imposing death penalty.”.Stating that the crime of rape can be expunged only when the perpetrator is dealt with in the most deterrent manner, the Court observed,.“The ultimate aim of sentencing is not only to punish the wrong doer but also to create a deterrent effect on others being indulging into such an act. When the legislators have made stiffer laws, none the less, it is the duty of the judiciary to enforce them.”.Invoking the Reformative Theory in such cases would defeat the basic tenets of imposition of penalty, the Court said..Relying on various judgments rendered by the Supreme Court, the Court iterated that the discretion to impose the death penalty is guided by balancing the aggravating and mitigating circumstances..Absence of direct evidence, young age of accused, absence of criminal antecedents, his diagnosis for Tuberculosis, good behaviour as an undertrial and being the sole earning member in his family, were some of the mitigating factors before the Court. Aggravating circumstances considered by the Court were the pre-planned and diabolical manner in which the crime was committed, exceptional brutality of the crime, and its anti-social nature. It also noted that the incident caused a stir in the society by shocking its collective conscience..While awarding death penalty to the accused in the case, the Sessions Judge, after weighing the mitigating as well as the aggravating circumstances, concluded that the conduct of the accused clearly fell within the “rarest of rare” cases..Agreeing with the trial court, the High Court said,.“Such a person would surely remain a menace to the Society and in this backdrop, we are of the firm view that there are no extraneous mitigating circumstances available on record which may justify imposition of sentence less than a death sentence which the learned Sessions Court has imposed.”.Further noticing that there was no remorse on his part, the Court stated that merely because the accused’s behaviour as an undertrial prisoner was satisfactory, it can be no ground to absolve him of the most gruesome and cruel act which he has indulged in..The Court also observed that the basic aim of a modern welfare State is to provide a safe and secured environment to all its citizens, yet,.“...the recent developments in the few years have given rise to a feeling of uncertainty and fear in the mind of woman folk in this country where women are worshipped in form of goddess. The women in this country may not demand they be worshipped in the modern days scenario but they would surely expect to breathe freely and feel safe and comfortable in and outside their houses.”.Under such circumstances, the Court said, it is expected to “administer the criminal judicial system which should provide an effective and meaningful life to a girl child and the women in this country.”.In the end the Court held,.” (The deceased victim) was done to death by the accused for no-fault of her own, except for a reason that she is a woman and she fell prey to the sinister design of accused to fulfil his lust. The said attitude of the accused, according to us, deserves a death sentence. “.Read the judgment: