"Perhaps the Trial Judge got swayed with the gravity of the crime", Patna High Court sets aside death penalty against rape and murder accused

The Patna High Court recently acquitted a rape and murder accused, thereby setting aside a death sentence awarded by the trial court for lack of cogent reasons (Ajit Kumar v. State of Bihar)..The Bench of Chief Justice Sanjay Karol and S Kumar pronounced judgment in the matter..Taking note of the fact that the prosecution evidence seemed to be founded on hearsay, the Court recorded its dissatisfaction with the lower court’s finding that the offence warranted the death penalty. The judgment states,.“The trial judge has in a perfunctory manner referred to the evidence and not furnished any cogent, much less legally sustainable reasons in arriving at conclusions, holding the accused guilty of each one of the charged offences."Patna High Court.The appellant, Ajit Kumar, was convicted by a trial court under provisions of the Indian Penal Code and the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, 2012 for the kidnap and rape of a minor..As per the prosecution’s account, the appellant and another enticed and kidnapped a minor and set her on fire after sexually assaulting her. The prosecution had at first averred that the girl had poured kerosene on herself and died thereby..The Bench noted that the trial court did not furnish cogent reasons to conclude that the appellant deserved the death penalty, in the nine-pages it had devoted to condemning him. It noted,“The approach adopted is casual and perfunctory in nature, unmindful of the consequences of the decision which when implemented becomes irrevocable and irreversible.”.The Court found the testimony of the three witnesses called upon by the prosecution to prove their case that the girl had been kidnapped, to be based on hearsay, uninspiring, and self-contradictory..A supposed confession statement was the basis of the conviction, without its admissibility in evidence having been examined, the High Court noted.."The existence of the confessional statement was what weighed with the learned Judge for convicting the accused, but its relevance or admissibility was never considered and examined", the Bench remarked..Pertinently, the Court found that the evidence on hand did not indicate that the deceased minor had been the victim of a sexual assault..The Court observed:"On the issue of sexual assault, there is no evidence at all. The testimony of P.Ws. 1, 2 and 3 lacks credence. None found any telltale signs of rape on the spot or the body of the deceased. There is neither medical nor any scientific evidence indicating such fact. The theory of the accused pouring kerosene oil and setting the deceased on fire is also not borne out of the record, for P.W. 6 has not ruled out the possibility of suicide. He has deposed that "cannot say it is suicidal, homicidal or accidental." Also, what was the original version recorded in the Case Diary is not on record.".The High Court took specific exception to the fact that the trial court had failed to examine the material witnesses and place on record crucial evidence. It was also noted that the trial court failed to ascertain whether the evidence at hand inspired confidence and established the prosecution case beyond reasonable doubt..The verdict further reads,.“Perhaps the Trial Judge got swayed with the gravity of crime which undoubtedly is heinous in nature. But this is where the Judge's role comes in, to decide judiciously in removing the husk from the chaff. The Trial Judge presumed and assumed without discussing, the veracity of fruitfulness of the testimonies of the witnesses…”Patna High Court.It was also noted that the trial judge did not take into consideration a number of factors before handing out the death sentence."What is the basis of his conclusion of the case being the rarest of rare cases is not discussed. What are the special reasons for grant of capital punishment; whether there were any mitigating circumstances; what was the mental state, motive, or the brutality of the crime were never thought of much less considered by the learned trial judge. The approach adopted is casual and perfunctory in nature, unmindful of the consequences of the decision which when implemented becomes irrevocable and irreversible.".On these terms, the death penalty was overturned and the accused was acquitted..Read the Judgment