Madras HC confirms death penalty for Daswanth for sexual assault, murder of 7-year-old

The Madras High Court has confirmed the death sentence awarded to techie S Daswanth, in connection with the sexual assault and murder of a seven-year-old child in February last year..The Bench of Justices S Vimala and S Ramathilagam pronounced the verdict this afternoon in an appeal preferred by Daswanth against the death sentence awarded to him by the Chengalpet Mahila Court last February..The gruesome trail of events can be traced to February 5, 2017, when the victim went missing from the playground where her parents had left her. Based on clues provided by video footage, the burnt remains of the child were found on February 8..22-year-old Daswanth, who was neighbour to the child, was eventually arrested on charges of having kidnapped, molested and murdered her. The police found that Daswanth had lured the child into his apartment, before molesting and murdering her. After attempting to dispose of the body, Daswanth had also accompanied search parties as they looked for the child..Finding merit in the prosecution’s case, the Sessions Court had sentenced Daswanth to death earlier this year. Proceedings against Daswanth for having allegedly murdered his mother while out on bail are still pending before the trial court..In the judgment pronounced today, the Madras High Court has confirmed the lower court’s findings that sexual assault and murder charges against him have been proved beyond reasonable doubt. It was further held that the case merits the award of the death penalty. The lead judgment penned by Justice S Vimala states,.“If not for the present case, there would be not too many cases, which would fall within the category of ‘the rarest of rare cases’ calling upon the Court for maximum punishment. If at all there is a case warranting award of death sentence, it is the present case.”.Relying on numerous Supreme Court precedents, the Court took into account the following aggravating factors to discern that the case fell within the category of the rarest of the rare:.The brutal nature of the crime, which had also aroused intense and extreme indignation of the communityThe murder was committed in cold blood by a person who was in a dominating position or a position of trustThe victim is an innocent childThe case involves heinous offences such as sexual assault, murder and kidnappingThe crime was committed so brutally that it shocked not only the judicial conscience but also the conscience of society.Whereas Dashwanth’s young age could have been viewed as a mitigating factor, the Court held that it was not sufficient to reduce the sentence. As observed in the judgment,.“So far as age is concerned, it is only one of the consideration, but not a determinative factor by itself. So far as sexual offences are concerned, when the accused is young, the probability of repeating the offence is more.”.Summing up the reasons for affirming the death penalty, Justice Vimala has observed,.“In the present case, there is not even a hint of hesitation in the mind of this Court with respect to the aggravating circumstances outweighing the mitigating circumstances. This Court does not find any justification to convert the death sentence imposed by the court below to ‘life imprisonment for the rest of the life’. The gruesome offence was committed with highest viciousness. Human lust was allowed to take such a demonic form.”.Justification for Capital Punishment.The judgment goes on to make several pertinent observations, indicating that the death penalty is required as a response to such heinous crimes, as a measure of justice. As observed in the lead judgment,.“Opponents of capital punishment may brand it as surrender of our emotions to grief, fear, etc. But for the supporters, this is totally false. Many of us would find it hard even to kill an ant, much less a man. Accepting capital punishment means not that we surrender our emotion, but that we overcome it.”.Justifying the imposition of the death penalty in the instant case, the following words of Lord Denning were recounted:.“The truth is that some crimes are so outrageous that society insists on adequate punishment, because the wrongdoer deserves it, irrespective of whether it is a deterrent or not.”.As per the Court’s observations, the life of a single individual cannot be prioritized over the interests of a victim of crime or the larger public. The following observations suggest that in choosing to safeguard the larger interest, the death penalty would be justified..“Would not the act of violating physical space of women and children amount to violation of Article 21 of the Constitution of India for the women and children? The victims of sexual abuse go through an unfathomable, emotional, physical and psychological pain, not only at the ignominious point, but throughout their life..Is not the safety and security and in fact the right to life of the larger mass more important than the right to life of a single individual?”.Ultimately, the Court expressed its hope that the death sentence would have a deterrent effect on all potential offenders. As explained in the judgment,.“‘[Not that] I loved Caesar less … [but] that I loved Rome more’.Brutus’s statement essentially means that his love for the Roman citizens and the Roman public, outweighs his individual love and affinity for Julius Caesar. So, as our love for the society outweighing the love for the individual..This Court while confirming the death sentence imposed on the accused wish that the last second of this accused at the long end of the rope be the last second of end of the lust of potential offenders of the whole world towards womenfolk.”.On these grounds, it was held,.“In the result, the Criminal Appeal filed by the appellant/accused is dismissed. The reference made under Section 366 of Cr.P.C., with regard to the question of confirmation of the death sentence awarded by the learned Sessions Judge, Mahila Court, Chengalpet, in S.C. No.133 of 2017 dated 19.02.2018, against the accused is confirmed and it is answered accordingly.”.In a separate judgment, Justice S Ramathilagam concurred with the verdict, stating,.“…I have no hesitation to conclude that this case comes within the category of rarest of rare case, warranting imposition of death penalty. Accordingly, I do not find any reasons to interfere with the findings of the trial Court and I concur with the findings of the death penalty.”.Read the judgment: