Featured image for Supreme Court Judgment dated 03-10-2019 in case of petitioner name Ravishankar @ Baba Vishwakarma vs State of Madhya Pradesh
| |

Supreme Court Commutes Death Sentence to Life Imprisonment in Brutal Rape and Murder Case

The Supreme Court of India, in its judgment dated October 3, 2019, commuted the death sentence of Ravishankar @ Baba Vishwakarma to life imprisonment, ruling that he shall remain in prison for the rest of his life without remission. The case involved the kidnapping, rape, and murder of a 13-year-old girl, an act the Court described as heinous and brutal. However, after analyzing the mitigating and aggravating circumstances, the Court determined that the case did not meet the ‘rarest of rare’ standard required for imposing the death penalty.

Background of the Case

The case originated in Madhya Pradesh, where the accused, Ravishankar @ Baba Vishwakarma, was convicted of multiple offenses under the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act. The charges included:

  • Kidnapping (Section 363 IPC)
  • Abduction with intent to commit a sexual offense (Section 366 IPC)
  • Rape of a minor (Sections 376(2)(i), 376(2)(n), 376(2)(j), 376(2)(m), 376-A IPC)
  • Murder (Section 302 IPC)
  • Destruction of evidence (Section 201 IPC)

The trial court sentenced him to death, citing the crime as ‘rarest of rare.’ The Madhya Pradesh High Court upheld the conviction and the death penalty. The case was then brought before the Supreme Court, where the sole issue under consideration was whether the death penalty should be upheld or commuted to life imprisonment.

Prosecution’s Case

The prosecution presented a chain of circumstantial evidence proving the following:

  • The victim, a 13-year-old girl, went missing on May 21, 2015.
  • Her partially clothed body was discovered in a dry well in a nearby village.
  • Medical and forensic reports confirmed rape and homicidal strangulation.
  • The accused’s DNA matched samples found on the victim’s body and clothing.
  • Witnesses testified that the accused was last seen with the victim.

The prosecution argued that the crime was premeditated, committed with extreme cruelty, and warranted the severest punishment under the law.

Defense’s Arguments

The defense contested the prosecution’s reliance on circumstantial evidence, arguing that:

  • There were inconsistencies in witness testimonies.
  • The accused had no prior criminal record.
  • The possibility of reform and rehabilitation should be considered.

Supreme Court’s Observations

The Supreme Court upheld the conviction but commuted the death sentence, making the following key observations:

“A balance sheet of aggravating and mitigating circumstances has to be drawn up, and in doing so, the mitigating circumstances have to be accorded full weightage.”

The Court acknowledged that the crime was brutal but also considered mitigating factors, including the accused’s background, the possibility of rehabilitation, and the principle that life imprisonment should be the norm, with the death penalty reserved for only the most extreme cases.

Legal Precedents Considered

The Supreme Court referred to previous rulings, including:

  • Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab – Establishing the ‘rarest of rare’ doctrine.
  • Machhi Singh v. State of Punjab – Laying down criteria for awarding the death penalty.
  • Swamy Shraddananda v. State of Karnataka – Introducing the concept of life imprisonment without remission.
  • Union of India v. Sriharan – Affirming courts’ power to impose life imprisonment without remission.

Final Verdict

  • The Supreme Court upheld the conviction but commuted the death sentence to life imprisonment without remission.
  • The Court ruled that the accused shall remain in prison for the rest of his life.
  • The judgment reinforces that the death penalty should be imposed only in the ‘rarest of rare’ cases.

Key Takeaways from the Judgment

  • DNA Evidence is Crucial: The case underscores the significance of forensic science in securing convictions.
  • Balancing Justice and Rehabilitation: The ruling highlights the judiciary’s effort to balance punishment with the potential for rehabilitation.
  • Strict Sentencing Without Death: The judgment affirms the power of courts to impose life imprisonment without remission as an alternative to the death penalty.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s decision in this case exemplifies a measured approach to capital punishment. While acknowledging the gravity of the crime, the Court emphasized that the death penalty should not be imposed mechanically. The ruling reinforces the principles of proportionality, ensuring that life imprisonment without remission serves as a severe punishment while upholding the sanctity of human life.


Petitioner Name: Ravishankar @ Baba Vishwakarma.
Respondent Name: State of Madhya Pradesh.
Judgment By: Justice Rohinton Fali Nariman, Justice R. Subhash Reddy, Justice Surya Kant.
Place Of Incident: Madhya Pradesh.
Judgment Date: 03-10-2019.

Don’t miss out on the full details! Download the complete judgment in PDF format below and gain valuable insights instantly!

Download Judgment: Ravishankar @ Baba V vs State of Madhya Prad Supreme Court of India Judgment Dated 03-10-2019.pdf

Direct Downlaod Judgment: Direct downlaod this Judgment

See all petitions in Murder Cases
See all petitions in Criminal Conspiracy
See all petitions in Bail and Anticipatory Bail
See all petitions in Judgment by Rohinton Fali Nariman
See all petitions in Judgment by R. Subhash Reddy
See all petitions in Judgment by Surya Kant
See all petitions in partially allowed
See all petitions in Modified
See all petitions in supreme court of India judgments October 2019
See all petitions in 2019 judgments

See all posts in Criminal Cases Category
See all allowed petitions in Criminal Cases Category
See all Dismissed petitions in Criminal Cases Category
See all partially allowed petitions in Criminal Cases Category

Similar Posts