Jodhpur:<\/strong> In a significant judgment on capital punishment, the Rajasthan High Court at Jodhpur has upheld the conviction of Ramesh Kumar Dhakad in the rape and murder of a three-year-old girl but declined to confirm the death sentence awarded by the trial court, holding that the case did not meet the stringent \u201crarest of rare\u201d threshold required for capital punishment.<\/p>\n\n\n\n A Division Bench of Justice Vinit Kumar Mathur and Justice Chandra Shekhar Sharma pronounced the judgment on August 6. Court Says Brutality Alone Cannot Justify Capital Punishment; Life Imprisonment Not \u2018Unquestionably Inadequate\u2019<\/p>\n\n\n\n Unbroken chain of circumstances The Court found that the minor girl was last seen alive in the exclusive company of Dhakad, the accused\u2019s disclosure led to the recovery of her body from a well, medical evidence established death by strangulation, and the DNA evidence scientifically connected the accused with the victim and the crime.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The Bench concluded that the prosecution had proved beyond reasonable doubt that Dhakad kidnapped the minor, subjected her to aggravated penetrative sexual assault, strangulated her and threw her body into a well to conceal the evidence. The conviction recorded by the trial court was accordingly affirmed.<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u2018Heinous And Brutal\u2019 Crime, But Not Rarest Of Rare<\/p>\n\n\n\n The crucial question before the High Court was whether the offence warranted the irreversible punishment of death. Applying the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in Machhi Singh and Lehna, the Court held that death can be imposed only when life imprisonment is \u201cunquestionably inadequate\u201d and the alternative punishment is effectively foreclosed.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The Court categorically held that the present case did not fall within the category of \u201crarest of rare\u201d cases warranting the death sentence. According to the Bench, although the aggravating circumstances were grave, they did not constitute such exceptional circumstances as would make life imprisonment wholly inadequate.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Consideration to Family Responsibilities and Good Jail Conduct<\/p>\n\n\n\n While determining the sentence, the High Court considered the mitigation report prepared pursuant to Supreme Court directions.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The report showed that Dhakad belonged to a modest rural agricultural family, was illiterate and had been working as a farmer. He had aged parents, a wife and three minor children dependent upon him. The report also recorded no previous criminal antecedents apart from the present case and satisfactory conduct during incarceration.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The Court, however, made it clear that these factors did not dilute the gravity of the offences. Rather, they were relevant only to the sentencing exercise, where aggravating and mitigating circumstances had to be balanced.<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u2018Death Is Exception, Life Imprisonment Is Rule\u2019<\/p>\n\n\n\n Reiterating the settled position in capital sentencing, the Court observed that death penalty is an exception while imprisonment for life is the rule.<\/p>\n\n\n\n According to the Bench, capital punishment can be imposed only where, after balancing aggravating and mitigating circumstances, the Court concludes that the alternative punishment of life imprisonment is unquestionably inadequate.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The Court ultimately affirmed Dhakad\u2019s conviction for all offences, but modified the sentence under Section 302 IPC.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The sentences imposed for the remaining offences were left unaltered and directed to operate as ordered by the trial court.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The murder reference seeking confirmation of the death penalty was rejected, while Dhakad\u2019s appeal was partly allowed to the limited extent of modification of sentence.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" Conviction Of Ramesh Dhakad Upheld; Death Sentence Converted to Life Imprisonment Jodhpur: In a significant judgment on capital punishment, the Rajasthan High Court at Jodhpur has upheld the conviction of Ramesh Kumar Dhakad in the rape and murder of a three-year-old girl but declined to confirm the death sentence awarded by the trial court, holding … Read more<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":9228,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_wppp_is_locked":false,"_wppp_selected_plans":[],"footnotes":""},"categories":[29,69],"tags":[1548,1894,46,1547,1892,1615,63,339,1614,1543,659,43,1893,1539,32],"class_list":["post-9308","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-top-stories","category-rajasthan-high-court","tag-capital-punishment","tag-child-rape-murder","tag-criminal-law","tag-death-penalty","tag-death-sentence","tag-dna-evidence","tag-ipc-section-302","tag-jodhpur-bench","tag-justice-vinit-kumar-mathur","tag-life-imprisonment","tag-rajasthan-hc","tag-rajasthan-high-court","tag-ramesh-kumar-dhakad","tag-rarest-of-rare","tag-supreme-court"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/lawsandlegals.com\/english\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/9308","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/lawsandlegals.com\/english\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/lawsandlegals.com\/english\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lawsandlegals.com\/english\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lawsandlegals.com\/english\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=9308"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/lawsandlegals.com\/english\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/9308\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":9309,"href":"https:\/\/lawsandlegals.com\/english\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/9308\/revisions\/9309"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lawsandlegals.com\/english\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/9228"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/lawsandlegals.com\/english\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=9308"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lawsandlegals.com\/english\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=9308"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lawsandlegals.com\/english\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=9308"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}
The High Court rejected the defence challenge to the conviction and held that the prosecution had established a complete and unbroken chain of circumstances.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The Bench observed that the crime was undoubtedly \u201cgrave, heinous\u201d and deserving of the strongest condemnation, but held that the brutality of the offence, by itself, could not be the sole basis for imposing capital punishment.<\/p>\n\n\n\n