MP HIGH COURT DISCUSSES THE DISTINCTION BETWEEN ‘BRUTAL’ AND ‘BARBARIC’ ACT IN RAPE CASES
The Madhya Pradesh High Court, while hearing a criminal appeal titled Rajaram v. State of Madhya Pradesh 2025 SCC OnLine MP 4416, challenging the conviction and death sentence imposed by the Special Judge (POCSO), Khandwa, for the rape and attempted murder of a four-year-old child under various provisions of the IPC and the POCSO Act, upheld the conviction for these serious offences but refused to confirm the death penalty. The Court stressed that the case did not satisfy the “rarest of rare” doctrine, which is necessary for awarding capital punishment.
Factual Background
On the night of 30–31 October 2022, a four-year-old girl who was staying with relatives in Khandwa disappeared, while sleeping in a hut alongside her cousin. The Convict/Appellant, employed at a nearby dhaba, had requested to sleep on a cot near the hut that evening but was found missing the next morning. When questioned by police, he led them to a mango orchard where the girl was discovered. She was unconscious and severely injured. The Victim had suffered grave sexual injuries and was subsequently shifted to Bombay Hospital, Indore. The DNA evidence strongly supported the conviction. The Special Judge (POCSO) convicted him and imposed the death penalty under Section 6 of the POCSO Act, along with Sections 307, 363, 450, and 201 of the Indian Penal Code. The death sentence was referred to the High Court for confirmation, and the Convict appealed against both, conviction and sentence.
Arguments by the Parties
The Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the Appellant argued that the Appellant’s name was not mentioned in the initial FIR, no eyewitness had observed the abduction or assault, and the victim did not identify him. They contended that DNA evidence, being circumstantial, should not alone justify conviction. It was also submitted that the Convict was only 20 years old, illiterate, belonged to a Scheduled Tribe, and had no prior criminal record. He further challenged the Trial Court’s conclusion that the offence fell within the “rarest of rare” category.
The Amicus Curie, relying on the judgment of Apex Court in Bhaggi @ Bhagirath @ Naran v. State of M.P., (2024) 5 SCC 782, submitted that the distinction between ‘Barbaric’ and ‘Brutal’ acts needs to be kept in mind in the present case and if the act is not found to be ‘brutal’, then the death sentence could not be awarded.
The Prosecution maintained that DNA samples conclusively matched the evidence recovered from the victim’s clothes and the crime scene, proving the Convict’s guilt beyond reasonable doubt. They pointed out that the child was raped with extreme cruelty and left to die, and cited several precedents upholding death penalty in similar cases involving child rape and attempted murder.
Court’s Analysis
The Court observed that the Victim’s age was clearly established as four years and three months through documentary proof. The Convict’s DNA matched the evidence recovered. His disclosure led police to the location of incident, and medical reports confirmed a sexual assault that caused severe injuries and brain swelling due to oxygen deprivation.
Nevertheless, the Court considered several mitigating factors: the young age of the accused, absence of any prior offences, his impoverished tribal background, employment in a roadside dhaba, and abandonment by his family. These circumstances, in the Court’s view, placed the case outside the “rarest of rare” classification. Further, the Court noted there was no conclusive medical evidence showing that the victim had been rendered permanently disabled or incapable of leading a normal life.
Citing authorities including Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab (1980) 2 SCC 684, Machhi Singh v. State of Punjab (1983) 3 SCC 470, and Santosh Bariyar v. State of Maharashtra (2009) 6 SCC 498, the Bench reiterated that life imprisonment is the norm, and the death penalty an exception. The distinction between an act that is “barbaric” and an act that is both “barbaric and brutal” was emphasized, referring to Bhaggi v. State of M.P (supra). The Court found the Convict’s actions to be “barbaric” but not “brutal” so as to warrant death sentence.
Consequently, while recognising the horrific nature of the crime, the Court ruled that it did not qualify as “rarest of rare” deserving the death sentence. The conviction under Sections 363, 450, 307, 201 IPC and Section 6 of the POCSO Act was affirmed. However, the death penalty was commuted to Rigorous Imprisonment for 25 years along with a fine of ₹10,000/-, with an additional one year’s Rigorous Imprisonment in case of default, without remission.
Conclusion
While the Madhya Pradesh High Court unequivocally condemned the barbaric sexual assault, it reaffirmed that the death penalty must remain an exceptional measure reserved only for the “rarest of rare” cases. The judgment illustrates the nuanced approach courts are obliged to adopt: imposing severe punishment proportionate to the offence while respecting the constitutional mandate that life imprisonment, not death, is the rule.
Yash Hari Dixit
Associate
The Indian Lawyer and Allied Services
Please log onto our YouTube channel, The Indian Lawyer Legal Tips, to learn about various aspects of the law. Our latest Video, titled Uniform Civil Code Explained | Pros, Cons & Constitutional Perspective | Advocate Sushila Ram Varma| can be viewed at the link below:
Leave a Reply