SC upholds death penalty to man accused of raping minor

The Supreme Court on Thursday confirmed death sentence awarded to a man for rape and murder of a two-year-old girl child, saying he ruthlessly finished a life which was yet to bloom, just to satiate his sexual hunger.

A three-judge bench presided over by Justice R F Nariman, by a majority view of 2:1, upheld the capital punishment handed down to Ravi by the Bombay High Court as well as the trial court for his "senseless act" committed on March 6, 2012, in Jalna.

The court also pointed out the death sentence has been introduced as a penalty for the offence of aggravated penetrative sexual assault on a child

below 12 years in 2018, though it had no applicability in the present case as it took place prior to amendment in the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012.

In the instant case, the bench said, "The victim was barely a two-year-old baby whom the appellant kidnapped and

apparently kept on assaulting over 4-5 hours till she breathed her last."

The court also noted instead of showing fatherly love, affection and protection to the child against the evils of the society, he rather made her the victim of lust, betraying trust and social values

"The unnatural sex with a two-year-old toddler exhibits a dirty and perverted mind, showcasing a horrifying tale of brutality as he meticulously executed his nefarious design by locking one door of his house from the outside and bolting the other one from the inside so as to deceive people into believing that nobody was inside," Justice Kant, who authored the majority judgement said.

"This court cannot write off the

capital punishment so long as it is inscribed in the statute book," the bench said, dismissing his appeal.

In his separate judgement, Justice R Subhash Reddy though upheld conviction of Ravi but disagreed on the point of sentence and modified it to life term till his natural death without any remission.

Among various factors, Justice Reddy noted the appellant was a 25-year-old fruit seller and he was under influence of liquor at the time of committing the offence and the case was solely based on circumstantial evidence.

Besides, he noted there was no evidence to show that there is no possibility of reformation and rehabilitation of the appellant.