The judge ordered that penalties be served concurrently rather than sequentially.
The Supreme Court stated, citing its decision that examined 67 cases identical to its own over the previous 40 years, that the “only or sufficient factor by this court” for applying the death penalty in rape and murder cases has not been the victims’ young age.
The pivotal observation made by the supreme court was in response to an appeal filed by Irappa Siddappa, who had been found guilty and sentenced to death by a lower court. On March 6, 2017, the Karnataka High Court upheld the trial court’s ruling.
He was found guilty of abducting, raping, and killing a five-year-old girl in the Karnataka village of Khanapur in 2010. After the crime, he disposed of the victim’s body by throwing it into the Bennihalla stream in a bag.
Judges L Nageswara Rao, Sanjiv Khanna, and B R Gavai’s bench upheld Siddappa’s conviction for rape, murder, and evidence destruction; however, they overturned the death penalty award, which had been imposed by lower courts due to the victim’s young age, and commuted it to life in prison with a 30-year sentence.
The verdict written by Justice Khanna for the bench stated, “We find sufficient mitigating factors to commute the death sentence imposed by the Sessions Court and confirmed by the High Court into imprisonment for life, with the direction that the appellant shall not be entitled to premature release/remission for the offence under Section 302 (murder) of the Code until he has undergone actual imprisonment for at least thirty years.”
Additionally, it stipulated that the sentences would be read concurrently rather than consecutively.
The Supreme Court addressed arguments regarding the minor age of victims in rape and murder cases in great detail. The court also cited its ruling in the Shatrughna Baban Meshram case, which examined 67 Supreme Court rulings during the preceding forty years.
The supreme court stated that in these rulings, the trial court or the High Court had sentenced the accused parties to death for crimes under Sections 376 (rape) and 302 (murder) of the IPC in cases where the victims’ ages were under sixteen.
“Of these 67 cases, this Court upheld the accused’s award of the death penalty in 15 of them. Out of the aforementioned 15, this Court remitted the death penalty to life in three cases through review petitions.
“Of the twelve cases that remained, in two of them the death sentence was upheld by this Court and review petitions were denied. Accordingly, as of right now, the death penalty is affirmed in 12 out of 67 instances in which the victims were 16 years of age or less and the primary offenses were purportedly committed under Sections 376 and 302 IPC, the statement stated.
It stated that of these 67 cases, the victims were under the age of twelve in at least 51 of them, and that in three of them, the death penalty was changed to a life term under review.
The information above suggests that this Court has not deemed the victim’s young age to be the sole or sufficient justification for a death sentence. If that were the case, the accused would have received a death sentence in all or nearly all 67 cases, according to the top court.
It cited a number of rulings and declared that while the crime in question was horrible and deserving of punishment, it was not “the rarest of the rare, so as to require the elimination of the appellant from the society.”
It stated that the convict’s behavior in prison has been deemed satisfactory and that the state government has not provided any evidence to support the claim that he would continue to pose a threat to society by committing violent crimes.
Without a doubt, the appellant committed a heinous crime, and as a result, we think that a life sentence will be an adequate punishment and act of penitence for his actions. Since there is no evidence to suggest that the appellant would pose a serious threat to society if allowed to live, we also think that a life sentence would serve to deter any such threats. The bench declared, “We think there is hope for reformation and rehabilitation, so the option of life imprisonment is certainly not foreclosed and therefore acceptable.”