• About
  • Contcat Us
Monday, March 20, 2023
Justice Bench
No Result
View All Result
  • Login
  • Register
  • Home
  • Articles
  • Online Internship
  • Forums
  • Home
  • Articles
  • Online Internship
  • Forums
No Result
View All Result
justice bench
No Result
View All Result
Home General

Rajasthan HC commutes death penalty of man to life sentence charged wrongly for rape and murder of 7 year old and orders fresh probe – know more

By Justuce Bench by By Justuce Bench
May 18, 2022
in General
Reading Time: 5 mins read
0
0
Rajasthan HC commutes death penalty of man to life sentence charged wrongly for rape and murder of 7 year old and orders fresh probe

Rajasthan HC commutes death penalty of man to life sentence charged wrongly for rape and murder of 7 year old and orders fresh probe

0
SHARES
4
VIEWS

the Supreme Court has already confirmed the conviction of the man and the High Court could not acquit the accused

The Rajasthan High Court in State Of Rajasthan v Komal Lodha after finding that a death row prisoner was wrongly convicted, passed directions to the Jhalawar Superintendent of Police to reopen the case and conduct the investigation afresh in the case arising from the rape and murder of a 7-year-old.

The Bench comprising Justices Pankaj Bhandari and Anoop Kumar Dhand commuted the death penalty of the convict to a life sentence since which was only the aspect of the sentence was before the High Court. The Supreme Court has already confirmed the conviction.

READ ALSO

Gauhati High Court designates 15 lawyers as Senior Advocates including one woman lawyer – know more

Husband got divorced from the wife on the ground of cruelty after she was found to be adulterous: Chhattisgarh HC

the court also directed a probe into two other persons whose DNA was found and obtained from the clothes of the deceased child.

History of the case

In the case of raping and murdering a 7-year-old child accused was convicted and sentenced to the death penalty by the trial court. The High Court confirmed the conviction but commuted the death to life imprisonment;

The Supreme Court confirmed the conviction when the state appealed before it. However, The matter was remitted to the High Court to reconsider the question of the sentence.

While considering the sentence for a second time, the High Court found that the entire case rested on circumstantial evidence;

The court observed that the actual offenders were not booked whose DNA samples indicated false implications and that the two criminals who seemed to have actually committed the offense.

Hence, the case was directed to be re-opened, and the DLSA was asked to appeal against the conviction.

The High Court also commuted the death penalty of the convict to life imprisonment.

In Detail

The Court noted various instances of the false implication of the accused during the investigation.

The Bench could not reverse the conviction being directed by the Supreme Court to confine its decision to the question of sentence.

“We with heavy heart and with hope that justice would be done to the accused, who has been sentenced to imprisonment till death for crime committed by two other persons, commute sentence from death penalty to life imprisonment.”

The High Court examined precedents related to the death penalty and discussed reasons that could be considered for converting the death penalty to life imprisonment.

In order to strike a balance between the cumulative effects of both aggravating and mitigating circumstances the Court should consider both, the court held.

The bench observed the entire case was based on circumstantial evidence. It was taken into account that reliance had been placed by the court on the DNA report as per which, the DNA profiles of two males were obtained from the leggings of the victim.

The same profiles were also obtained from the underwear of the accused. However, it did not match that of the accused’s blood sample.

“The two male DNA profile obtained from the leggings of the deceased did not match with the DNA profile of the blood sample taken from the accused, the only conclusion that can be drawn from the above is that the two criminals who actually committed the crime were not booked by the police,” the court observed.

The High Court also took into account that the accused was not given an opportunity to explain his DNA report.

Added to this it was considered that as per the school record of the accused he was a minor at the time of the offense, he did not have any criminal background, and had shown good conduct in jail.

“The State has not come up with any material to show that the accused is a threat to the society or that he cannot be reformed.”

The Bench highlighted that the cardinal rule of criminal law is that a hundred guilty may be acquitted, but one innocent should not be held guilty.

It was stated that this rule was followed to ensure that overzealous prosecution did not result in the conviction of an innocent man.

“The reason for this is to ensure that the police and prosecution do their job right, and to ensure that an overzealous prosecution does not result in an innocent man being convicted of a crime, he did not commit, otherwise people would not have faith and respect for the justice delivery system,” the Bench said.

The High Court opined that the two others who had committed the crime diverted blame to the accused with the help of the police.

The material facts regarding the age of the accused and the DNA evidence were not brought to the apex court’s attention, and no assistance was provided to the appellant before the top court, the court underscored.

Therefore, the Secretary of the Rajasthan State Legal Services Authority was directed to appeal against the previous judgment of the High Court converting the accused’s death sentence to life imprisonment.

Further, the Bench in the instant case directed the Jhalawar Superintendent of Police to reopen the matter and investigate afresh the two accused whose DNA samples were obtained from the leggings of the victim.

The High Court further ordered to initiate appropriate action against those who booked the accused belonging to a backward class and had no means to defend his case.

“Superintendent of Police, Jhalawar, should submit report of the action taken by him within two months of the date of this order”.

The high court was limited to its jurisdiction, the Court only commuted the death penalty awarded to the accused, to life imprisonment.

Advocates

Advocate Nitin Jain appeared for the accused pro bono (without payment).

The State was represented by Additional Government Advocate Rekha Madnani.

[Read Judgment]

State_Of_Rajasthan_v_Komal_LodhaDownload

Tags: 7 year oldjustice benchlatest judgmentslegal newsmurderrajasthan high courtraperape casewrong conviction
ShareTweetSendShare

Related Posts

Gauhati High Court designates 15 lawyers as Senior Advocates including one woman lawyer - know more
General

Gauhati High Court designates 15 lawyers as Senior Advocates including one woman lawyer – know more

May 21, 2022
Husband got divorced from the wife on the ground of cruelty after she was found to be adulterous Chhattisgarh HC
General

Husband got divorced from the wife on the ground of cruelty after she was found to be adulterous: Chhattisgarh HC

May 20, 2022
Rajasthan HC Arnab Goswami got interim relief in a case filed by INCs Pawan Khera - know more
General

Rajasthan HC | Arnab Goswami got interim relief in a case filed by INCs Pawan Khera – know more

May 20, 2022
death punsihme row supreme court
General

Re consider conviction incentivizing policy for public prosecutors in Death penalty cases, Supreme Court asks Madhya Pradesh – know more

May 20, 2022
Private bus operators plead to continue tax exemption granted during COVID period dismissed by Kerala High Court - know more
General

Private bus operators plead to continue tax exemption granted during COVID period dismissed by Kerala High Court – know more

May 19, 2022
Supreme Court vacated stay on right to feed stray dogs- know more
General

Supreme Court vacated stay on right to feed stray dogs- know more

May 20, 2022
google news
google news

POPULAR NEWS

Justices DY Chandrachud, AS Bopanna, and Bela M. Trivedi,

Execution of Document not to be considered based on Admission of Sign on Document Rules Supreme Court

May 12, 2022
DIFFERENCE BETWEEN ADVOCATE AND LAWYER

WHAT IS THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN AN ADVOCATE AND A LAWYER?

June 4, 2022
La Milano Pizzeria restrained  from representing previous association with La Pino'z - know more

La Milano Pizzeria restrained  from representing previous association with La Pino’z – know more

May 20, 2022
Why does Sequoia Capital terminate connections with Sandeep Kapoors Algo Legal? threats of ED searches, arm-twisting, and more

Why does Sequoia Capital terminate connections with Sandeep Kapoors Algo Legal? threats of ED searches, arm-twisting, and more

June 6, 2022
jug jugg jeeyo

Copyright infringement | Jugjugg Jeeyo movie stay refused by Ranchi court

June 25, 2022

Tags

advocate Algo Legal Allahabad HC Allahabad High Court Anil Deshmukh anticipatory bail Appointment of Judges bail Bombay high court calcutta high court central government cji Collegium Collegium Recommendations defamation delhi high court divorce Enforcement Directorate gauhati high court Gujarat High court Gyanvapi Mosque high court judges IPR Judicial Appointments justice bench karnataka high court kerala high court latest judgements law ministry legal news madras high court murder patna high court pil pocso act Rouse Avenue Court Sequoia Capital study material supreme court Supreme Court Collegium supreme court of india UAPA Union Law Ministry Uttar Pradesh varanasi court

The Calcutta High Court has ruled that any form of penetration, even if it is minimal, during forced anal sex is considered an offense under Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code.

by By Justuce Bench
February 24, 2023
0
calcutta hc
News

The Calcutta High Court in India recently refused to quash a criminal case involving charges under Section 377 and allegations...

Read more

Bengaluru court has banned the spread of defamatory content about IAS officer Rohini Sindhuri in a lawsuit against Roopa Moudgil and the media

by By Justuce Bench
February 24, 2023
0
Bengaluru court has banned the spread of defamatory content about IAS officer Rohini Sindhuri in a lawsuit against Roopa Moudgil and the media
News

The Bengaluru court issued a temporary injunction against IPS officer D Roopa Moudgil and 59 media companies from broadcasting defamatory...

Read more

SC – Touching a finger to a vagina does not constitute “insertion” for the purposes of attracting charges of penetrative sexual assault under the POCSO Act.

by By Justuce Bench
February 23, 2023
0
pocso act
News

On Wednesday, the Supreme Court rejected an appeal against a Kerala High Court decision which had ruled that poking one's...

Read more

The Gujarat High Court has rejected a request by the wife of Sanjiv Bhatt, stating that police protection is not a guaranteed right.

by By Justuce Bench
February 13, 2023
0
The Gujarat High Court has rejected a request by the wife of Sanjiv Bhatt, stating that police protection is not a guaranteed right.
News

The Gujarat High Court has rejected a petition filed by Shweta Bhatt, wife of former IPS officer Sanjiv Bhatt who...

Read more

About

Justice Bench is one of the fastest growing news legal portal in India, for latest Latest Legal News india, Supreme Court judgement updates, High Courts Judgments updates,Law Firms News in india, Law School News, Latest Legal News india visit us.

Follow us

google news
google news

Recent Posts

  • The Calcutta High Court has ruled that any form of penetration, even if it is minimal, during forced anal sex is considered an offense under Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code.

Popular News

  • DIFFERENCE BETWEEN ADVOCATE AND LAWYER

    WHAT IS THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN AN ADVOCATE AND A LAWYER?

    0 shares
    Share 0 Tweet 0
  • Allahabad HC rules Daughter has the right to demand maintenance from father

    0 shares
    Share 0 Tweet 0
  • [Gyanvapi Mosque] Plea to quash FIR Lucknow University professor refused – know more

    0 shares
    Share 0 Tweet 0
  • Bengaluru court has banned the spread of defamatory content about IAS officer Rohini Sindhuri in a lawsuit against Roopa Moudgil and the media

    0 shares
    Share 0 Tweet 0
  • On custody of a surrogate child born before Surrogacy Act of 2021 the Allahabad High Court has sought a response from Centre

    0 shares
    Share 0 Tweet 0

© 2022 JusticeBench  |  Privacy Policy  | Terms of Use

No Result
View All Result
  • Home
  • Articles
  • Online Internship
  • Forums

© 2022 JusticeBench  |  Privacy Policy  | Terms of Use

Welcome Back!

Sign In with Google
OR

Login to your account below

Forgotten Password? Sign Up

Create New Account!

Sign Up with Google
OR

Fill the forms below to register

All fields are required. Log In

Retrieve your password

Please enter your username or email address to reset your password.

Log In