The court reaffirmed that the death penalty is justified in heinous crimes against children, where the conduct of the accused demands severe punishment to reflect societal abhorrence.

1. The Confirmation Case No. 4 of 2014 arises out of the reference made by the learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Thane in Sessions Case No. 407 of 2010 for confirmation of death sentence awarded to the appellant / accused Prakash Nishad @ Kewat Zinak Nishad. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, by Judgment and Order dated 27.11.2014 in Sessions Case No. 407 of 2010, convicted the accused for the offence punishable under S.302 of the Indian Penal Code ( for short 'IPC') and sentenced him to capital punishment of death. By the very same Judgment and Order, the accused was also convicted under S.376, S.377 and S.201 of IPC, as follows: -
(i) S.376 IPC - Imprisonment for life and fine of Rs. 1000/-, in default, R.I. for three months;
(ii) S.377 IPC - Imprisonment for life and fine of Rs. 1000/-, in default, R.I. for three months;
(iii) S.201 IPC - R.I. for 7 Years and fine of Rs. 1000/-, in default, R.I. for three months.

2. As indicated above, in view of the sentence of death imposed on the accused, the learned Additional Sessions Judge made a reference to this Court for confirmation of death sentence. The accused being aggrieved by the said Judgment and Order, preferred Criminal Appeal No. 88 of 2015. As the Confirmation Case and the Appeal are directed against the same Judgment and Order, both were heard and are being decided together.

3. The facts in the present case disclose a sordid and despicable act of the accused of sexual assault followed by brutal and merciless murder by the accused. One of the most disgusting feature is that a young girl of tender age of 6 years fell prey to the lust of the accused and was thereafter murdered by him which sends shock waves to anyone having slightest sense of human values and human dignity.

4. The prosecution case briefly stated, is as under:
(a) PW 1 Mustakin was residing along with his wife PW 2 Rehanabano, their children including the victim girl and his brother PW 3 Faim at Bhayander. The accused was residing near the house of Mustakin. The victim girl was six years of age at the time of the incident.
(b) On 11.6.2010 at about 9.00 p.m., after taking dinner, Mustakin and his family members were sitting in the house. At that time his eldest daughter i.e victim girl who was about six years of age went outside. She did not return for quite sometime, hence, Mustakin and others searched for the victim girl but she could not be found. On the next day, the dead body of the victim girl was found in a gutter at some distance from the house. Mustakin informed this fact to the police.
(c) A.D. No. 35 of 2010 came to be registered. PW 6 A.P.I. Chillawar received the papers of A.D. No. 35 of 2010 for inquiry. He then prepared inquest panchnama. He sent the dead body for postmortem. On receiving the postmortem report from the medical officer, A.P.I. Chillawar found that it was a case of ravishment and murder of the deceased girl, therefore, he lodged F.I.R. Exh. 44. Thereafter, investigation commenced. The accused was arrested on 13.6.2010. The accused was sent for medical examination. After completion of investigation, charge sheet came to be filed. In due course, the case was committed to the Court of Sessions.

5. Charge came to be framed against the accused under S.376, S.377, S.302 and S.201 of IPC. The accused pleaded not guilty to the said charge and claimed to be tried. His defence was that of total denial and false implication. After going through the evidence adduced in this case, the learned Sessions Judge convicted and sentenced the accused as stated in paragraph 1 above.

6. We have heard the learned Advocate for the accused and the learned APP for the State. After giving our anxi