Supreme Court stay on execution of death row convict

Applying the principle that even death row convicts have a right to life and liberty and to be heard fully, the Supreme Court on Wednesday stayed the execution of a convict whose death sentence for rape and brutal murder of a four-year-old minor girl in Mumbai was upheld in 2014.

A three-judge bench of Justices Dipak Misra, Rohinton Nariman and Uday Lalit stayed the death sentence and the execution while entertaining a review petition from Vasant Sampat Dupare seeking reconsideration of the death sentence awarded to him by the trial court and upheld by the Bombay HC and the apex court.

Though review petitions are normally decided in the chambers of the senior judge, the matter was heard in an open court following a five-judge Constitution bench verdict last year that all review petitions of death row convicts must be heard by three-judges in open courts. He had pleaded for commutation of death sentence into life imprisonment.

The bench, while issuing notice to the Maharashtra government, asked the state to hand over the statement of witnesses and other evidence before the trial court which resulted in his conviction. The case will be taken up on April 12. The appellant Dupare allured a minor girl of four years on the pretext of giving her chocolates, kidnapped and raped her.

Confirming this, the apex court had said that when the crime was diabolical in nature and shocked the judicial and collective conscience of society, awarding death sentence was the suitable punishment. “We are absolutely conscious that judges while imposing sentence, should never be swayed away with any kind of individual philosophy and predilections. It should never have the flavour of judge-centric attitude or perception. It has to satisfy the test laid down in various precedents relating to rarest of the rare case.”

The bench said, “The rape of a minor girl child is nothing but a monstrous burial of her dignity in the darkness. It is a crime against the holy body of a girl child and the soul of the society and such a crime is aggravated by the manner in which it has been committed. The nature of the crime and the manner in which it has been committed speaks about its uncommonness. The crime speaks of depravity, degradation and uncommonality. It is diabolical and barbaric. (sic)” A review was sought against this judgment.