POCSO Act: Act Was 'Barbaric' But Not 'Brutal'; Madhya Pradesh High Court Commutes Death Sentence to 25 Years Citing Mitigating Factors - 2025-08-04

MP High Court Commutes Death Sentence in Child Rape Case, Cites Mitigating Factors and 'Barbaric but not Brutal' Distinction

JABALPUR, MADHYA PRADESH – The High Court of Madhya Pradesh has commuted the death sentence awarded to a 20-year-old man for the rape of a four-year-old girl, modifying it to 25 years of rigorous imprisonment without remission. A division bench of Justice Vivek Agarwal and Justice Devnarayan Mishra , while upholding the conviction under the POCSO Act and various IPC sections, drew a crucial distinction between an act being "barbaric" and "brutal," and weighed the aggravating circumstances of the crime against the mitigating factors of the accused.

The court answered a criminal reference from the trial court for confirmation of the death penalty and simultaneously heard the criminal appeal filed by the convict, Rajaram @ Rajkumar.

---

Case Background

The prosecution's case stemmed from an incident in the intervening night of October 30-31, 2022. The four-year-old victim, who was visiting relatives, was abducted from her cot while sleeping. The appellant, Rajaram, who worked at a local dhaba and had borrowed a cot to sleep near the family's hut that night, was also found missing in the morning.

Following a search, the appellant was apprehended, and on his disclosure, the victim was discovered in an unconscious state in a mango orchard. Medical examinations confirmed she had been sexually assaulted and throttled. The trial court in Khandwa convicted Rajaram under Sections 307 (Attempt to Murder), 363 (Kidnapping), 450 (House-trespass), and 201 (Causing disappearance of evidence) of the IPC, and crucially, under Section 6 of the POCSO Act, sentencing him to death.

---

Key Arguments

For the Appellant (Defence): Senior Advocate Shri Sanjay Kumar Agrawal, appearing as Amicus Curiae, argued that the prosecution's case was based entirely on circumstantial evidence and lacked an eyewitness. He contended that the conviction relied heavily on the DNA report, which he termed inconclusive, and the inadmissible statement of the accused under Section 27 of the Evidence Act. It was highlighted that recoveries were made from open places accessible to others and that the victim was never examined. The defence emphasized the appellant's mitigating circumstances: his young age (20), tribal background, illiteracy, and lack of any prior criminal record.

For the State (Prosecution): Deputy Advocate General Shri Yash Soni defended the trial court's judgment, asserting that the scientific evidence, particularly the comprehensive DNA analysis, irrefutably linked the appellant to the crime. The prosecution argued that DNA evidence found on the victim's and the appellant's clothes, as well as at the crime scene, formed an unbroken chain of circumstances proving guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Citing precedents, the State argued that the heinous nature of the crime—kidnapping and raping a four-year-old child and leaving her for dead—warranted the death penalty as it fell into the "rarest of the rare" category.

---

Court's Analysis and Legal Precedents

The High Court meticulously analyzed the evidence, concluding that the prosecution had successfully established the appellant's guilt. The judgment noted:

"Thus, from this report (Exhibit-P/76), it is clear that the spot that was told by the appellant, blood stains and seman slide of the appellant were found... In the clothes of the victim, DNA profile of the appellant was found. In the same way, in the clothes of the appellant... the DNA of the victim was present. Thus, this establishes the identity of the appellant that the appellant had committed the offence..."

However, on the question of the death sentence, the Court embarked on a detailed analysis of aggravating and mitigating factors, as mandated by the Supreme Court in Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab .

The bench cited the recent Supreme Court ruling in Bhaggi alias Bhagirath alias Naran vs. State of Madhya Pradesh (2024) , which considered whether a rape was “barbaric and brutal” or “barbaric” but not “brutal” . Applying this principle, the Court observed:

"In that night, the act of the appellant could not be said to be 'brutal' though 'barbaric'."

The Court systematically balanced the factors: -

Aggravating Circumstances: The victim's tender age (4 years), the gruesome nature of the assault, and the attempt to murder by leaving her in a solitary place. -

Mitigating Circumstances: The appellant's youth (20 years old), his tribal community background, lack of education, absence of a prior criminal record, and his socio-economic condition, having left home at an early age to earn a living at a dhaba.

---

Final Decision

The Court concluded that while the appellant's act was heinous, the mitigating circumstances did not render the alternative of life imprisonment "unquestionably foreclosed." The bench affirmed the convictions under all sections but modified the sentence for the offence under Section 6 of the POCSO Act.

The judgment states:

"Hence, sentence imposed upon the appellant for the offence punishable under Sections 363, 450, 307, 201 of the Indian Penal Code is affirmed but his sentence for the offence punishable under Sections 6 of the POCSO Act is converted from Capital Punishment to the rigorous imprisonment of 25 years with the fine amount of Rs.10,000/-... (actual incarceration without remission/commission under Section 432 and 433 of Code of Criminal Procedure)..."

With this modification, the criminal reference was answered, and the appeal was partially allowed, commuting the death penalty to a fixed term of 25 years' imprisonment.