Bombay High Court Confirms Death Sentence for Rape and Murder of Minor Child - Brutal Crime Falls Under Rarest of Rare Category. The Court upheld the conviction under Section 302 IPC and Section 376(2)(f) IPC for the rape and murder of a 4-year-old girl, confirming the death sentence as the case fell within the 'rarest of rare' category.

High Court: Bombay High Court Bench: BOMBAY In Favour of Prosecution
  • 312
Judgement Image
Font size:
Print

Case Note & Summary

The case involves the confirmation of a death sentence awarded to Vitthal Tukaram Atugade by the learned District Judge-1 and Additional Sessions Judge, Islampur, District-Sangli, for the brutal rape and murder of a 4-year-old girl. The accused was convicted under multiple provisions of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) and the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO Act). The Trial Court sentenced him to death for murder under Section 302 IPC, life imprisonment for rape under Section 376(2)(f) IPC, and various terms of imprisonment for kidnapping (Section 363 IPC), abduction (Section 366 IPC), destruction of evidence (Section 201 IPC), and offences under POCSO Act (Sections 4 and 6). The Trial Court made a reference to the High Court under Section 366 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) for confirmation of the death sentence. The accused also filed an appeal against his conviction and sentences. The High Court, after hearing the parties, examined the evidence and the law. The Court considered whether the case fell within the 'rarest of rare' category for imposition of the death penalty. The Court noted the brutal and diabolical nature of the crime, the helplessness of the minor victim, and the lack of any mitigating circumstances. The Court held that the death sentence was justified and confirmed it. The Court also upheld the other convictions and sentences. The judgment was delivered by a Division Bench of the Bombay High Court, comprising Smt. V.K. Tahilramani and Shri A.S. Gadkari, JJ., with the judgment authored by A.S. Gadkari, J.

Headnote

A) Criminal Law - Death Sentence Confirmation - Rarest of Rare Cases - Section 302 Indian Penal Code, 1860 - The Court considered whether the murder of a 4-year-old girl after rape falls within the 'rarest of rare' category warranting death penalty. The Court held that the brutal and diabolical nature of the crime, the helplessness of the victim, and the lack of any mitigating circumstances justified the death sentence. (Paras 1-78)

B) Criminal Law - Rape of Minor - Aggravated Penetrative Sexual Assault - Section 376(2)(f) Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Section 6 Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 - The accused was convicted for rape of a child below 12 years. The Court upheld the life imprisonment sentence, noting the heinous nature of the assault. (Paras 2-78)

C) Criminal Law - Kidnapping - Section 363 Indian Penal Code, 1860 - The accused kidnapped the minor victim from lawful guardianship. The Court upheld the conviction and sentence of rigorous imprisonment for three years. (Paras 2-78)

D) Criminal Law - Abduction - Section 366 Indian Penal Code, 1860 - The accused induced the minor to go with him for illicit intercourse. The Court upheld the conviction and sentence of rigorous imprisonment for two years. (Paras 2-78)

E) Criminal Law - Destruction of Evidence - Section 201 Indian Penal Code, 1860 - The accused caused disappearance of evidence of the murder by disposing of the body. The Court upheld the conviction and sentence of rigorous imprisonment for three years. (Paras 2-78)

F) Criminal Law - Aggravated Penetrative Sexual Assault - Section 4 Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 - The accused was convicted for penetrative sexual assault on a child. The Court upheld the sentence of rigorous imprisonment for seven years. (Paras 2-78)

G) Criminal Procedure - Reference for Confirmation of Death Sentence - Section 366 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - The Trial Court made a reference to the High Court for confirmation of the death sentence. The High Court, after hearing the parties, confirmed the death sentence. (Paras 1-78)

Subscribe to unlock Headnote Subscribe Now

Issue of Consideration

Whether the death sentence awarded to the accused for the offences of murder, rape, kidnapping, and destruction of evidence of a minor girl should be confirmed under Section 366 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

Subscribe to unlock Issue of Consideration Subscribe Now

Final Decision

The High Court confirmed the death sentence awarded to the accused for the offence under Section 302 IPC and upheld all other convictions and sentences.

Law Points

  • Death sentence confirmation
  • Rarest of rare doctrine
  • Section 302 IPC
  • Section 376(2)(f) IPC
  • Section 363 IPC
  • Section 366 IPC
  • Section 201 IPC
  • Section 4 POCSO Act
  • Section 6 POCSO Act
  • Section 366 CrPC
Subscribe to unlock Law Points Subscribe Now

Case Details

2016 LawText (BOM) (03) 178

Confirmation Case No. 1 of 2015 with Criminal Appeal No. 923 of 2015

2016-03-14

Smt. V.K. Tahilramani, Shri A.S. Gadkari

2016:BHC-AS:6883-DB

Mrs. G.P. Mulekar, APP for the State; Mr. Abhaykumar Apte, appointed Advocate for the Appellant

The State of Maharashtra (in Confirmation Case No.1 of 2015); Vitthal Tukaram Atugade (in Criminal Appeal No.923 of 2015)

Vitthal Tukaram Atugade (in Confirmation Case No.1 of 2015); The State of Maharashtra (in Criminal Appeal No.923 of 2015)

Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more) Subscribe Now

Nature of Litigation

Confirmation of death sentence and appeal against conviction for offences including murder, rape, kidnapping, and destruction of evidence of a minor girl.

Remedy Sought

The State sought confirmation of the death sentence; the accused appealed against his conviction and sentences.

Filing Reason

The Trial Court awarded death sentence and made a reference to the High Court for confirmation under Section 366 CrPC; the accused filed an appeal against the conviction and sentences.

Previous Decisions

The Trial Court convicted the accused and sentenced him to death for murder, life imprisonment for rape, and various terms for other offences.

Issues

Whether the death sentence awarded to the accused for the murder of a minor girl should be confirmed under Section 366 CrPC. Whether the conviction and sentences under various provisions of IPC and POCSO Act are sustainable.

Submissions/Arguments

The State argued that the case falls within the 'rarest of rare' category and the death sentence should be confirmed. The accused argued that the evidence was insufficient and the sentences were excessive.

Ratio Decidendi

The brutal and diabolical nature of the crime, the helplessness of the minor victim, and the lack of any mitigating circumstances justify the imposition of the death penalty as the case falls within the 'rarest of rare' category.

Judgment Excerpts

The learned Additional Sessions Judge, Islampur convicted the accused for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to suffer death sentence... The accused is also convicted for the offence punishable under Section 376(2)(f) of the Indian Penal Code and is sentenced to suffer life imprisonment...

Procedural History

The Trial Court (District Judge-1 and Additional Sessions Judge, Islampur) convicted the accused on 18th April 2015 in Sessions Case No.4 of 2014 and awarded death sentence, making a reference to the High Court under Section 366 CrPC. The accused filed an appeal against the conviction and sentences. The High Court heard both matters together and delivered judgment on 14th March 2016.

Acts & Sections

  • Indian Penal Code, 1860: 302, 376(2)(f), 363, 366, 201
  • Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012: 4, 6
  • Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: 366, 368
Subscribe to unlock full Legal Analysis Subscribe Now
Related Judgement
High Court Bombay High Court Allows Petitioner's Claim for Caste Validity Based on Brother's Prior Validity. Scrutiny Committee Cannot Reject Claim by Sitting in Appeal Over Sibling's Validity Under Rule 17 of Maharashtra SC, DNT, NT, OBC and SBC Rules, 2012.
Related Judgement
High Court Madras High Court Allows Writ Appeal by Villagers Challenging Restraint on Construction of Anganwadi Centre. Land classified as private temple, not private patta; patta obtained by misrepresentation cannot defeat public purpose.