Bombay HC confirms Death Penalty awarded to trio for Rape and Murder of 16-year old girl from Ahmednagar

Last week, the Aurangabad Bench of the Bombay High Court upheld the death penalty awarded to three men convicted for the rape and murder of a 16-year-old girl from Ahmednagar District, finding that the extreme perversity of the crime qualifies it as a rarest of the rare case.

A Division Bench of Justices TV Nalawade and KK Sonawane passed the judgement while rejecting appeals filed challenging the trial court verdict passed against Santosh Vishnu Lonkar (36), Mangesh Dattatraya Lonkar (30) and Dattatraya Shankar Shinde (27).

The deceased victim was raped several times on August 22, 2014 in Ahmednagar,  after she was intercepted by the trio at a lonely place on her way back home from school. After committing rape on the victim, the accused murdered her with sharp weapons. Her body was found in a canal later that evening. The Local Police initiated an investigation after First Information Report (FIR) was filed the same day.

All three accused were eventually sentenced to death for offences punishable under Sections 302 (Punishment for Murder) and 376-A (Punishment for Rape) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The three accused were also convicted for under Sections 4 and 6 of the POCSO Act, which lay down punishment for aggravated penetrative sexual assault against the child. However, no separate sentence was given for these offences.

The High Court, in turn, concurred with the conviction and sentence imposed by the trial court in the case. As regards the conviction of the accused, the Bench examined the evidence on record and the testimony forwarded to conclude,

“The circumstances established by the prosecution if considered together, they show that they complete the chain of circumstances to point finger only against the accused persons as guilty persons. “

In order to confirm the death penalty awarded, the Bench factored in the age of the victim, the age of the accused, lack of empathy on the part of accused in committing the crime and the element of pre-meditation in committing the heinous crime.

“Even when accused No.1 was a father of 2 issues, he was a married man, the other accused were also elder persons, they committed such heinous act against a girl aged about 16 years.“

The Court also noted that the crime was committed in a very cruel manner.

“The accused did not think for a moment about pains and the situation to which the deceased was being subjected by their act. The accused acted in a very cruel manner and their acts like forcibly trusting mud into her mouth to prevent her from shouting indicates that they had pre-decided not to show mercy of any kind.”

The Court further noted that during the span of around 30 to 45 minutes, the deceased was raped may times. Thereafter, the Bench observed, a sharp weapon (screwdriver) was used to kill the victim. The Court further observed,

“… the weapon was such that due to a single blow, the deceased must not have died and she must have seen almost all the blows given by sharp weapon and also blunt weapon and she must have suffered the pains till her last breath. She must have been horrified due to such conduct of the accused and the horror created must have been beyond imagination.”

In view of these observations, the High Court proceeded to conclude,

“The aforesaid circumstances show that it is a perversity of extreme nature. The conduct of the accused shows that there is no possibility of their reformation and they do not deserve to live in any society. The society would not like to have such members and that is why there was agitation on 24-8-2014 by the people of the village to see that prompt and proper action is taken in respect of the incident.

This Court has no hesitation to hold that the case meets the test of rarest of rare case. Thus, it is not possible to interfere in the decision given by the trial court and the death sentence needs to be confirmed.“

The trial court’s award of death penalty was thereby upheld, with instructions that the accused must not be executed for another 60 days so that they may challenge the sentence before the Supreme Court.

Public Prosecutor AB Girase appeared for the complainant and State, while advocates CV Dharurkar and PK Phale appeared for accused.

[Read Judgement dated October 17, 2019]