[Rape & murder of 7-year-old] Tremors have not stopped even after conviction: Supreme Court confirms death sentence

The Supreme Court on Friday confirmed the death sentence awarded to a man convicted of kidnapping, raping and killing a seven-and-a-half-year-old mentally and physically disabled girl. [Manoj Pratap Singh v State of Rajasthan].The decision was passed by a three-judge Bench of Justices AM Khanwilkar, Dinesh Maheshwari and CT Ravikumar while hearing an appeal against an order of the Rajasthan High Court convicting the appellant and awarding him the death penalty.“The tremors thrown by the appellant to shock anyone’s conscience with his beastly conduct have not stopped even with this inhumane crime and even after his conviction,” the Court observed..In a nutshell- The Rajasthan High Court confirmed the appellant’s conviction and death sentence for raping and murdering a 7-year-old;- The appellant challenged this stating that he was falsely implicated; he did not lead any evidence in his defence;- The appellant also relied on mitigating circumstances such as his young age, and that his conduct was without a blemish;- The Court, however, refused these arguments stating that the aggravating circumstances outweighed the mitigating circumstances;- It was also taken into account that the appellant, while in jail, had murdered a co-inmate with the help of three other inmates;- Therefore, the death sentence was confirmed..The prosecution’s case rested on circumstantial evidence, which they argued, was confirmed by a complete chain of events. Further, the prosecution stated that the appellant's acts disclosed premeditation and the crime was committed in a barbaric manner.It was also highlighted that his conduct post-conviction was felonious as he was convicted of murdering another inmate and punished for quarrelling with another detainee..However, the appellant submitted that he was falsely implicated. His counsel said that since the case was based on circumstantial evidence, he ought to be given the benefit of ‘residual doubt’ and thus, capital punishment should not be awarded.Additionally, the appellant discussed mitigating factors due to which he should be spared from the capital sentence. These factors included his young age at the time of the offence, his poor economic background, his having a family with a wife, a minor daughter and an aged father..On examining in detail the norms relating to death penalty, the theory of residential doubt, the crime and criminal tests, the Bench noted that no concept of residual doubt was available for the purpose of sentencing.While stating that the gruesome nature of the action and the crime itself may not be decisive, particularly regarding the question of capital punishment, the Court went on to cautiously examine the other relevant factors, specifically those of the tests pertaining to the criminal himself.“Taken as a whole, these factors of the age, family and socio-economic background of the appellant are not so clinching as to overwhelm and override the aggravating factors,” the judgment stated..Further, on examining whether there was a reasonable probability of reformation and rehabilitation of the appellant, it was found that the aggravating circumstances would undoubtedly outweigh the mitigating circumstances.Taking note of the facts, the Court remarked that the antecedents of the appellant depicted a person whose conduct had not been free from blemish.“The facts surfacing on record make it clear that the crime in question was not the singular criminal activity of the appellant.”.The Court recorded its added shock at the appellant’s conduct in jail where he not only quarrelled with an inmate which earned him 7 days of punishment, but was also convicted of murdering a co-inmate.“We could only wonder what more of criminal activity would qualify as blemish, if not the involvement and conviction in a case of murder of a fellow jail inmate!”.Thus, it was concluded that the elements surrounding the offence and the offender cut across the balance sheet of aggravating and mitigating circumstances, and there was no reason to commute his death sentence to one of a lesser degree.“The facts of the present case, taken as a whole, make it clear that it is unlikely that the appellant, if given an absolution, would not be capable of and would not be inclined to commit such a crime again.”.The Court also rejected calls for a psychological evaluation of the appellant to be carried out before deciding the question of sentence, deeming the same as "impractical and unrealistic"..Before parting with the case, the Bench recorded its appreciation for Senior Advocate A Sirajudeen who appeared pro bono for the appellant.“..despite having a tough brief to handle, has attempted his best to espouse the cause of the appellant,” the Court said..[Read Judgment]