[Murder of 4-year-old] Extra-judicial confession sign of repentance: Bombay High Court commutes death sentence

The Bombay High Court commuted death sentence of a man to life imprisonment in a case of murder of a 4-year-old girl, observing that the extra-judicial confession given by the convict showed his repentance for the act [State of Maharashtra v. Mohammad Aabed Mohammad Ajmir Shaikh].A Bench of Justices Sadhana Jadhav and Prithviraj Chavan observed that the criminal act in the present case was brought to light by the convict himself when he made an extra-judicial confession to a fellow worker who informed the same to the police.“The fact that he had confessed about his guilt would show that he had repented for the act committed by him,” the order said.The Court noted that the confession of having committed the crime to satisfy his vendetta was made voluntarily and free from any threat and inducement.It carries a presumption of truth, and is not necessarily a weak piece of evidence, the Bench concluded..The appellant, Mohammad Aabed, was sentenced to death by the trial court for kidnapping, raping and murdering a minor girl, 8 months after her father slapped him for non-payment of ₹1500.The Maharashtra government approached the High Court seeking confirmation of the sentence for offences under Sections 302 (murder), 363, 364, 366A (kidnapping) and 376 (rape) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and offences under Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act..After examining the evidence, the High Court concluded that the crime committed by the appellant was out of vengeance for the humiliation he had faced, and there was no material to show that sexual assault was committed.“Satisfaction of personal vendetta had overpowered him momentarily and in that moment of deprivation of self control, he had committed the offence. …There is no material to show that he was over-powered by lust,” the court noted.In light of this observation, the High Court set aside the conviction under Section 376 of IPC and POCSO Act.The Court, however, maintained the conviction under the remaining provisions of IPC considering his extra-judicial confession about the offence.“The act committed by him is brutal and deserves no leniency,” the Court made it clear..Although the act was barbaric and heinous, the Court proceeded to discuss whether death penalty was the only possible punishment.From the circumstances, the Court opined that the case did not fall under the category of the 'rarest of rare case' and hence modified the death sentence to life imprisonment.“The State has failed to bring before us any material to show that there is no scope for reformation or rehabilitation. ...The material on record indicates that the appellant is not a hardened criminal and therefore, there is every hope that he could be reformed, rehabilitated and reintegrated into the society,” the judgement stated..Additional Public Prosecutor Arfan Sait appeared for Maharashtra.Advocates Payoshi Roy and Dr. Yug Mohit Chaudhry appeared for the appellantAdvocate Priyanka Chavan appeared for the complainant.[Read Judgment]