19 November 2024 :

The Madhya Pradesh High Court on November 15, 2024 commuted the death sentence of a man accused in the rape and murder of a 12-year-old girl into life imprisonment, observing that in a life sentence, there was a possibility of retribution but death penalty was “unique in its absolute rejection of the potential of convict to rehabilitate and reform.”
Vishal Bhamore was convicted on July 10, 2019 – over a month after the girl went missing while taking a trip to the local store to buy gutka for her father. A missing persons’ report was filed on June 9.
Her body was found on June 10 in a local drain and a medical report eventually confirmed she was raped.
According to investigators, Bhamore was initially part of the party that went out in search of the girl but later absconded.
While arguing against the death penalty, Bhamore’s lawyer, senior advocate Uma Kant Sharma, said the case didn’t fall under “rarest of rare” category, and therefore, imposing the extreme penalty was uncalled for.
While commuting the sentence, a Bench of Justices Vivek Agrawal and Devnarayan Mishra said the Supreme Court has ruled that first, for imposing the death penalty, a case must clearly fall within the ambit of “rarest of rare”, and second, the alternative option of life imprisonment must be unquestionably foreclosed.
“In life sentences, there is a possibility of achieving deterrence, rehabilitation and retribution in different degrees. But the same does not hold true for the death penalty. It is unique in its absolute rejection of the potential of convicts to rehabilitate and reform. It extinguishes life and thereby terminates the being, therefore, puts an end to anything to do with the life. This is the big difference between two punishments,” the HC said.
The court said that for satisfying the second aspect of rarest of rare doctrine, the court will have to provide clear evidence as to why the convict is not fit for any kind of reformatory and rehabilitation scheme.
“We find that there is no criminal history of the appellant. The Learned Trial Court has not taken this aspect into consideration. It has only said that since such offences are on rise against minor daughters, which are indicative of a perverted mind, then with a view to save the dreams of minor children, conclusive punishment is required to be given to such convicts,” the court said.