Supreme Court Stuns the Nation by Revoking Death Penalty in Rape and Murder Case

In a groundbreaking decision on Thursday, the Supreme Court overturned the death sentence and conviction of a man involved in a rape and murder case. The ruling came in light of profound concerns that he had been wrongly found guilty following a remarkably swift 15-day trial [Naveen @ Ajay vs State of Madhya Pradesh].

A panel comprising Justices BR Gavai, PS Narasimha, and Prashant Kumar Mishra strongly rebuked the trial court for its hasty proceedings. Consequently, they have remanded the rape and murder case back to the trial court for a complete and thorough retrial.

“The Trial Court rushed the proceedings, depriving the accused of a fair chance to defend himself… Consequently, the Court has ordered a fresh trial, instructing that the appellant be provided with a proper opportunity to present his defense,” the Court stipulated in its order dated October 19.

The Supreme Court further mandated the appointment of a senior counsel to represent the accused during the forthcoming retrial in the trial court.

Also Read –POSH Act Mandates Supreme Court’s Array of Guidelines for States/UTs to Appoint ‘District Officers’

Rape and Murder Case Background

The case under consideration involved the rape and murder of a 3-month-old child and had originally received a death sentence from the trial court. The 2018 Madhya Pradesh High Court ruling, which upheld this sentence, was the subject of appeal before the Supreme Court.

Remarkably, the trial concluded and the verdict was issued within an unprecedented timeframe of just 15 days.

It was brought to the Court’s attention that the alleged crime occurred on April 20, 2018, with the chargesheet filed within a week. Subsequently, the trial commenced on April 27, 2018, and the death sentence was delivered on May 12, 2018.

The Supreme Court, in addition to other apprehensions, expressed doubt regarding whether the defense counsel had been provided with all the essential materials necessary to present their concluding arguments.

Analysis of Rape and Murder Case

The panel also observed an error in the High Court’s decision not to permit the accused to contest specific expert medical reports. The High Court had justified this stance by suggesting that the accused could have cross-examined the authors of those reports during the original trial.

The Supreme Court, however, concluded that it had been utterly unfeasible for the accused to accomplish this task within the stringent time constraints imposed by the trial court.

“It was entirely unrealistic to expect the accused to personally call upon… the authors of the reports within a single day, especially considering that these experts were government employees and couldn’t have been available in court upon a request from a detained defendant. The Trial Court’s treatment of the accused appeared to assume that he had some sort of magical ability, allowing him to summon highly qualified government-employed experts with a mere phone call. In reality, the appellant had no meaningful opportunity to cross-examine these experts,” remarked the highest Court.

In its verdict, the apex court underlined the critical importance of courts maintaining ‘judicial serenity’ to guarantee a just trial.

” In the sacred confines of the legal realm, the cornerstone of a fair and impartial trial is firmly based on the embodiment of judicial serenity. A judge is duty-bound to exude an atmosphere of calm, providing a refuge for reason and contemplation. In the domain of justice, the gavel does not descend hastily but follows a measured cadence, ensuring that each voice and every piece of evidence receives its due recognition. The realm of judicial serenity not only safeguards constitutional integrity but also lays the essential groundwork for trust in the legal system,” the Court proclaimed.

The Court proceeded to grant approval to the appeal lodged by the accused (referred to as the appellant) and invalidated his death sentence.

Read Judgement

Facebook