The Supreme Court on Wednesday has cancelled the death sentence announced upon rape and murder convict Mohd. Firoz. The apex court challenged the legality of the judgement passed by the Madhya Pradesh High Court in Jabalpur in 2014 stating that ‘every sinner has a future.’

In a shocking decision, the Supreme Court commuted the death sentence awarded to one Mohd. Firoz for the rape and murder of a 4-year-old. He will now just serve 20 years for the crime, not even a full life sentence till the end of his natural life.

The case dates back to April 2013 and took place in Ghansore, district Seoni, MP. Firoz was sentenced to death in October of that same year by a trial court. The Madhya Pradesh High Court dismissed his appeal and confirmed the death sentence. But 9 long years later, justice has been denied to the victim and her family, as SC has commuted the death sentence to just 20 years – if time already served by him in prison is taken into account, he could be out in another 11 years. The child was brutally assaulted – two of her teeth were broken when Firoz smothered her with the intent to kill her after raping her.

The bench comprising Justices UU Lalit, S. Ravindra Bhat, and Bela M. Trivedi observed that the maximum punishment prescribed ‘may not always be the determinative factor for repairing the crippled psyche of the offender’.

In appeal, the SC bench held that the prosecution had proved beyond reasonable doubt that Firoz had committed the crime. Yet, regarding the death sentence awarded for murder, the bench made the following observation:

“While affirming the view taken by the courts below with regard to the conviction of the appellant for the offences charged against him, deem it proper to commute, and accordingly commute the sentence of death for the sentence of imprisonment for life, for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC.

The child was brutally assaulted – two of her teeth were broken when Firoz smothered her with the intent to kill her after raping her

“Since, Section 376A IPC is also applicable to the facts of the case, considering the gravity and seriousness of the offence, the sentence of imprisonment for the remainder of the appellant’s natural life would have been an appropriate sentence, however, we are reminded of what Oscar Wilde has said – “The only difference between the saint and the sinner is that every saint has a past and every sinner has a future”.

“One of the basic principles of restorative justice as developed by this Court over the years also is to give an opportunity to the offender to repair the damage caused, and to become a socially useful individual, when he is released from the jail. The maximum punishment prescribed may not always be the determinative factor for repairing the crippled psyche of the offender.

“Hence, while balancing the scales of retributive justice and restorative justice, we deem it appropriate to impose upon the appellant-accused, the sentence of imprisonment for a period of twenty years instead of imprisonment for the remainder of his natural life for the offence under section 376A, IPC. The conviction and sentence recorded by the courts below for the other offences under IPC and POCSO Act are affirmed. It is needless to say that all the punishments imposed shall run concurrently.”

So, a man who raped and murdered a 4-year-old will walk free after serving just 20 years in prison! Whether Oscar Wilde had the rape and murder of a minor child in mind when he was talking of ‘sins’, is another matter altogether. And how does a figure from English literature make its way into deciding the punishment for a criminal in Bharat? Are Bharat’s judge's English literature critics and philosophers, or is their job to apply Indian law? Are we going to give a ‘second chance’ to any and all ‘sinners’ going forward? Are we saying that the rape and murder of an innocent 4-year-old are so commonplace nowadays that it doesn’t merit the death penalty.

Our colonised and hijacked judiciary, which operates as a self-serving and self-appointing cabal under the Collegium System has now become a clear impediment to the progress of the nation and to the rule of law itself. 

Case details: Mohd Firoz vs State of Madhya Pradesh | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 390 | CrA 612 OF 2019 | 19 April 2022

Coram: Justices UU Lalit , S. Ravindra

Headnotes

Criminal Trial - Sentencing - Restorative justice

To give the opportunity to the offender to repair the damage caused, and to become a socially useful individual, when he is released from the jail - The maximum punishment prescribed may not always be the determinative factor for repairing the crippled psyche of the offender. (Para 43)

Madhya Pradesh HC announced the death sentence to Firoz for rape and murder of a minor girl

In 2014, the Sessions Court in Madhya Pradesh’s Seoni Court had registered offences under various sections of the IPC and was directed to undergo life imprisonment in one of them. The Madhya Pradesh High Court in Jabalpur awarded the death sentence to Mohd. Firoz Khan in the same year.

The high court had dismissed the appeal of accused Firoz and confirmed the death sentence for him. Upon the death sentence, the SC panel held that it deems proper to commute the sentence of death for the sentence of imprisonment for life under Section 302 of the IPC. The panel asserted that owing to Section 376A of the IPC, the sentence of imprisonment would have been appropriate considering the gravity and seriousness of the offence.

Highlighting the tenets of restorative justice, the panel in its hearing quoted British Novelist Oscar Wilde saying, “The only difference between the saint and the sinner is that every saint has a past and every sinner has a future”. The court observed that it is important to give an opportunity to the offender to repair the damage caused and to become a socially useful individual when he is released from jail. Hence, the Court finally pronounced, “While balancing the scales of retributive justice and restorative justice, we deem it appropriate to impose upon the appellant-accused, the sentence of imprisonment for a period of twenty years instead of imprisonment for the remainder of his natural life for the offence under section 376A.”

Supreme Court of India says that we are reminded of what Oscar Wilde has said – “The only difference between the saint and the sinner is that every saint has a past and every sinner has a future”

The case of Prosecution

The case unfolded in 2013 when two accused Md. Firoz Khan and Rakesh Chaudhary visited a home to provide accommodation to the said unknown person for a day. When the mother of the victim was denied, Rakesh Choudhary left while Firoz Khan grabbed an opportunity to kidnap the 4-year-old victim girl playing in the courtyard of the house.

The victim’s family had registered a missing complaint at the local police station. The next day, the girl was found lying unconscious in the field in MP’s Ghansaur. The victim died in Nagpur during the treatment in April 2013 while the postmortem report confirmed the occurrence of rape upon the girl child. The two accused were arrested from Husainabad in Bihar’s Bhagalpur and were tried before the trial court. Rakesh Chaudhary, who was earlier awarded life imprisonment, was acquitted from all charges levelled against him while the Madhya Pradesh High Court awarded Mohd. Firoz with a death sentence.

A bench comprising Justices UU Lalit, S. Ravindra Bhat, and Bela M. Trivedi observed that the maximum punishment prescribed ‘may not always be the determinative factor for repairing the crippled psyche of the offender’

Netizen's Reactions

References:

• hindupost.in
• livelaw.in
• opindia.com