The Division Bench, consisting of Justice Ananda Sen and Justice Gautam Kumar Choudhary, rejected the criminal appeal filed by the accused, emphasizing, “We will fail both the victim and society if capital punishment is not imposed,” classifying the case as one of the “rarest of rare.”
![[Rarest Of Rare Criteria] "We Will Fail The Victim & Society If Capital Punishment Is Not Awarded": HC Confirms Death Sentence To Convict In 19-Year-Old Engineering Student's Rape-Murder Case](https://i0.wp.com/lawchakra.in/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/MicrosoftTeams-image-15.png?resize=820%2C616&ssl=1)
Ranchi: The Jharkhand High Court has upheld the death sentence of a man convicted of raping and murdering a 19-year-old engineering student. The Court confirmed the trial court’s decision to impose the death penalty on the 25-year-old accused for the “heinous crime,” deeming it worthy of capital punishment.
The Division Bench, consisting of Justice Ananda Sen and Justice Gautam Kumar Choudhary, rejected the criminal appeal filed by the accused, emphasizing,
“We will fail both the victim and society if capital punishment is not imposed,” classifying the case as one of the “rarest of rare.”
The Bench further remarked,
“Victimology goes beyond compensation, which cannot replace a life lost to such a crime. It also serves to deliver a punishment proportionate to the severity and gravity of the offence. Failure to impose the death penalty in such cases would be a disservice to the victim and society.”
Senior Advocate R.S. Mazumdar represented the appellant, while Special Public Prosecutor Priya Shrestha appeared on behalf of the respondent. The prosecution claimed that the victim, who was alone at home, was “brutally raped, strangled to death, and her body was set on fire to destroy evidence.” The case, initially registered with the local police, was later transferred to the CBI for investigation.
The trial court convicted the accused under Sections 302 (murder), 376 (rape), 449 (house trespass), and 201 (causing disappearance of evidence) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), sentencing him to death. The conviction and sentence were challenged on the basis that there were no direct eyewitnesses, and the case relied on circumstantial evidence.
The prosecution, however, argued that the identity of the accused as the perpetrator was confirmed through a DNA report after forensic analysis of the victim’s vaginal swab, nail clippings, and other bodily materials.
In affirming the death sentence, the High Court emphasized the extreme nature of the crime, referring to it as bearing “the hallmarks of a professional criminal.” The Court noted that the crime was “meticulously planned and mercilessly executed” and highlighted the accused’s lack of remorse.
The Court observed that the “overwhelming circumstantial and scientific evidence leaves no doubt that the appellant is the perpetrator of this heinous crime.” Consequently, the conviction under Sections 302, 376, 449, and 201 of the IPC was upheld.
The Court also pointed out that capital punishment is sanctioned by law and remains in force under the recently amended Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. It further noted that the constitutionality of the death penalty has been repeatedly upheld by the Supreme Court.
READ ALSO: 2016 Dalit Law Student Rape-Murder Case | Kerala HC Upholds Death Sentence
The Court referred to the guidelines established by the Supreme Court in Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab (1980), which laid down criteria for identifying “rarest of rare” cases.
The Supreme Court clarified that a death sentence is warranted when life imprisonment is inadequate, particularly in cases involving extreme brutality and premeditated planning
. Based on this, the High Court ruled that the “horrific nature of the appellant’s actions justifies the death penalty under Section 302 of the IPC.” The sentence of death imposed by the trial court was thereby confirmed, and no additional sentences were imposed under Sections 449, 376, and 201.
Thus, the High Court upheld the death sentence.
