Rape, murder of child: HC upholds conviction of 56-yr-old man

The Delhi High Court has upheld the conviction of a 56-year-old man for brutally raping and murdering a three-year-old girl, saying the offence fits the description of a crime of "exceptional depravity".
The court, however, deferred its decision to July 11 as to whether the convict be sent to gallows, as awarded by the trial court, or serve the life imprisonment.
A bench of justices S Muralidhar and Mukta Gupta, which was to decide on the appeal of convict Bharat Singh and the death reference plea of the state, asked the Delhi government to appoint a probation officer for giving a report as to whether there was any chance of convict being "rehabilitated or reformed" or if he is still a threat to the society.

The lower court had on January 15, 2013 awarded death penalty to the convict for the murder and life imprisonment for the rape of the child, saying the case "fell in the category of rarest of rare cases warranting the capital punishment".
The girl, who went missing on April 9, 2011 from her home, was kidnapped by the convict, a private security guard posted at a farm house, and was raped in the guards' room there.
The medical report said the victim was not murdered after the rape, rather she died due to "neurogenic shock caused by forceful and painful sexual intercourse".

The high court relied on the DNA tests reports that proved that it was the convict who had ravished the little girl.

"The court is of the view that in the present case the DNA Fingerprint Analysis confirms that the anal swabs taken from the victim contained alleles (which) were fully accounted for in the blood sample taken from the accused. This clinches the issue as far as the rape, and consequential murder of the victim, by the accused is concerned," it said.
The court, however, concurred with the submissions of defence lawyer Sumeet Verma that the death penalty cannot be awarded on the sole ground that the offence was grave in nature.

Citing various recent case laws, Verma said the state is under a legal obligation to lead evidence as to whether the condemned convict can be reformed or rehabilitated or not.