HC commutes death for 3 Shakti Mills rape convicts to life term

HC commutes death for 3 Shakti Mills rape convicts to life term

Swati.Deshpande@timesgroup.com

Mumbai:26.11.2021

Eight years after two shocking gang rape cases in the abandoned Shakti Mills premises in central Mumbai, the Bombay HC commuted the death sentence awarded to three convicts involved in both crimes to life imprisonment on Thursday.

The court upheld their conviction for gang rape and other offences and said the sentence shall mean “rigorous imprisonment for the remainder of their natural life” with no remission, including parole and furlough. It dismissed an appeal by another convict and upheld his life term.

“Women are the backbone of every nation and therefore, they deserve their due respect and honour. Honour and respect for women are the marks of a civilised society,’’ the HC said.

Convicts don’t deserve to assimilate in society: Court

A bench of Justices Sadhana Jadhav and P K Chavan said the crime was grave and the convicts “don’t deserve to assimilate in society”. “The statute has not prescribed mandatory death penalty. Although the offence is barbaric and heinous, it cannot be said… the accused deserve only death penalty,” said the HC, adding they “deserve imprisonment for life to repent the offence committed by them as death puts an end to the concept of repentance”.

Vijay Jadhav, 19 at the time of the crime, Mohammad Qasim Shaikh (20) and Mohammed Salim Ansari (27) had been sent to death row in April 2014 by the trial court in a case of gangrape of a photojournalist, then 22, on August 22, 2013. Besides the three, one person was sentenced to life and a minor accused was penalised under the juvenile justice board. The accused did not appeal the death penalty.

The three had got the death sentence as they were also convicted in another gangrape of a 19-year-old telephone operator on July 31, 2013, on the same premises at Mahalaxmi.

Their court-appointed counsel Yug Chaudhry cited several irregularities in the trial court proceedings in awarding them death sentence under section 376E of the IPC, a stringent law for repeat offenders, saying the charge was not invoked as per law. But special public prosecutor Deepak Salvi argued that the law permits death sentence for second conviction and the “sequence and time of the offence is immaterial”.

On March 20, 2014, the sessions judge had first held the three common accused guilty for the gangrape of the telephone operator and about 30 minutes later, pronounced a guilty verdict in the case of the photojournalist too. In this gap, the state had made a plea to invoke section 376E. The court, therefore, handed the death sentence.

The HC bench held that it was not a case of a previous conviction “since both the sessions cases were being tried simultaneously and the conviction in both was on the same day without giving an opportunity to the accused to place before the court the mitigating circumstances”.

It added: “In a case like the present one, the court cannot ignore the fact that this incident had shocked the conscience of the society and there was public outcry.” But the court cannot punish based on public outcry alone, it is a court’s duty to consider the case “dispassionately’’ and it cannot ignore legal procedures. “A sentence of death is irrevocable and therefore, the basic principle in sentencing policy would be life imprisonment as a rule and death penalty as an exception,” the court added.

On Thursday, in a separate judgment, the high court dismissed an appeal and upheld the life sentence of Mohd Ashfaq Shaikh, 25, for the July 31 gangrape.

In the death sentence confirmation hearing, the HC said “there is no doubt that the incident as narrated by the survivor on August 22, 2013, had occurred in the backdrop and in the manner in which it was narrated. The courage of the survivor needs to be appreciated’.

The statute has not prescribed mandatory death penalty. Although the offence is barbaric and heinous, it cannot be said the accused deserve only death penalty... they deserve imprisonment for life to repent the offence committed by them as death puts an end to the concept of repentance

—BOMBAY HC

A sentence of death is irrevocable and therefore, the basic principle in sentencing policy would be life imprisonment as a rule and death penalty as an exception

Court