{"id":239058,"date":"2020-11-12T01:17:04","date_gmt":"2020-11-11T19:47:04","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?p=239058"},"modified":"2020-11-12T13:26:16","modified_gmt":"2020-11-12T07:56:16","slug":"timing-of-crime-saves-man-from-facing-gallows-or-prison-for-the-rest-of-his-life-for-raping-and-killing-2-5-year-old-niece-sc-commutes-sentence-to-25-years-of-ri-under-section-376a-ipc","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/blog.scconline.gen.in\/post\/2020\/11\/12\/timing-of-crime-saves-man-from-facing-gallows-or-prison-for-the-rest-of-his-life-for-raping-and-killing-2-5-year-old-niece-sc-commutes-sentence-to-25-years-of-ri-under-section-376a-ipc\/","title":{"rendered":"Timing of crime saves man from facing gallows or prison for the rest of his life for raping and killing 2.5 year old niece. SC commutes sentence under Section 376A IPC"},"content":{"rendered":"\n
Tweet<\/a><\/div>\n

Supreme Court<\/strong>: In a chilling case where a 21-year-old man was sentenced to death under Sections 302<\/a> and to life imprisonment under\u00a0376A of IPC<\/a> for raping and killing his 2.5 years-old niece, the 3-judge bench of Justice UU Lalit*<\/strong>, Indu Malhotra and Krishna Murari, JJ has commuted the punishment to life imprisonment for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC<\/a> and to that of rigorous imprisonment for 25 years for the offence punishable under Section 376A IPC<\/a>. The Court also affirmed the conviction and sentence recorded by the Courts below for the offences punishable under Section 376(1), (2)(f), (i) and (m) of IPC, and under Section 6 of the POCSO Act.<\/p>\n

\n

Sentencing under Section 302 IPC<\/strong><\/span><\/h3>\n
\n

The Court found the Appellant guilty of having committed the offence of culpable homicide amounting to murder under Section 300 IPC Fourthly.<\/a> In such cases, according to the Court, it is very rare that the death sentence is awarded.<\/p>\n

Considering the age of the victim i.e 2.5 years, the Court said that the accused must have known the consequence that his sexual assault on the child would cause death or such bodily injury as was likely to cause her death.<\/p>\n

\n

\u201cThe evidence on record also depicts an exceptional case where two and half years old girl was subjected to sexual assault. The assault was accompanied by bites on the body of the victim. The rape was of such intensity that there was merging of vaginal and anal orifices of the victim. The age of the victim, the fact that the Appellant was a maternal uncle of the victim and the intensity of the assault make the present case an exceptional one.\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

However, it could not be held that the appellant consciously caused any injury with the intent to extinguish the life of the victim. Though all the injuries are attributable to him, his conviction under Section 302 IPC<\/a> is not under any of the first three clauses of Section 300 IPC<\/a>.<\/p>\n

\n

Sentencing under Section 376A IPC<\/strong><\/span><\/h3>\n
\n

The case at hand was a peculiar one as the offence was committed just a week after the amended Section 376A<\/a> was brought into force in the year 2013. Hence, the question before the Court was whether awarding life imprisonment in the present case would mean \u201cthe remainder of that person\u2019s natural life or with death\u201d or not.<\/p>\n

Two important conclusions were made by the Court:<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n