Sambhubhai Raisangbhai Padhiyar vs State of Gujarat (2024) - Case Analysis

Introduction of Sambhubhai Raisangbhai Padhiyar vs State of Gujarat (2024)

Sambhubhai Raisangbhai Padhiyar vs State of Gujarat (2024) is an important case which centres around the conviction of an individual who was sentenced to death for the sexual assault and murder of a 4-year-old child. The Appellant challenged the death sentence in the Supreme Court. The 3-Judge Bench of the Supreme Court after reviewing various factors including the mental health and social background of the accused, commuted the death penalty to 25 years of imprisonment without remission.

Download Sambhubhai Raisangbhai Padhiyar vs State of Gujarat 2024 PDF

Why in the Spotlight? - Sambhubhai Raisangbhai Padhiyar vs State of Gujarat (2024)

The 3-Judge Bench of the Supreme Court comprising Justice B. R Gavai, Justice Aravind Kumar and Justice K.V Viswanathan upheld the conviction of the accused for the sexual assault and murder of a 4-year-old child. The Court reduced his sentence from the death penalty to 25 years of imprisonment without remission. The fine imposed by the lower courts was also set aside due to the socio-economic background of the accused.

Historical Context and Facts of Sambhubhai Raisangbhai Padhiyar vs State of Gujarat (2024)

The case at hand revolves around the death sentence of a convict convicted of sexual assault and murder of a 4 year-old child was commuted to a imprisonment sentence. The following are the brief facts of the case -

Incident Overview

Pravingiri Gosai (PW-9) a farmer and temple priest from Piludara village in Gujarat on 13th April 2016 left his home in the morning with his wife Artiben (PW-13.2) to fetch fodder. He left his two children namely, Rohit (aged 4) and Rajeshwari (aged 3 months) with their grandmother at home.

Disappearance of Rohit

When Pravingiri and his wife returned home they found that Rohit was missing. Artiben informed PW-9 that Rohit had been playing near the temple but had not returned. Pravingiri Gosai (PW-9) continued searching for his son. He was told by his sister-in-law Jyotsnaben (PW-10) that she had seen the Appellant taking Rohit to buy ice cream.

Discovery of the Body

Pravingiri Gosai (PW-9) received information regarding his son from Manoj Kumar Parmar (PW-11). He went to the bank of the lake where he found the dead body of Rohit naked and lying near some bushes.

Investigation and Postmortem Report

Following this, Pravingiri Gosai (PW-9) filed a First Information Report (FIR) at the Vedaj Police Station. The Postmortem report revealed that Rohit died from asphyxia due to throttling and had multiple injuries including signs of sexual assault.

Arrest of the Appellant

On 14th April 2016 the Appellant was arrested. The medical examination of the Appellant revealed injury marks on his genitals.

Evidence and Recovery

The Prosecution furnished circumstantial evidence including a recovery panchnama (Exh.18) and a statement by the Appellant regarding the location of the clothes of the victim which were later recovered.

Circumstantial Evidence

The Prosecution relied on circumstantial evidence and followed the principles laid down in Sharad Birdhichand Sarda vs State of Maharashtra (1984).

Decision of the Trial Court

The Trial Court sentenced the Appellant to death under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) for the murder of the 4-year-old child Rohit and was also sentenced to 10 years of imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 10,000 for the offence under Section 364 of IPC and life imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 10,000 for the offence under Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act. The Trial Court ordered these sentences to run concurrently.

Decision of the High Court of Gujarat

Aggrieved by the decision of the Trial Court, the Appellant approached the Gujarat High Court. However, the High Court confirmed the death sentence imposed by the Trial Court and dismissed the appeal filed by the Appellant.

Appeal in the Supreme Court

The Appellant approached the Supreme Court and challenged the decisions passed by the High Court of Gujarat and the Trial Court.

Issue addressed in Sambhubhai Raisangbhai Padhiyar vs State of Gujarat (2024)

The main question which was addressed in this case was whether the death penalty imposed by the lower court was justified or not?

Legal Provisions involved in Sambhubhai Raisangbhai Padhiyar vs State of Gujarat (2024)

In the recent Supreme Court Judgement of Sambhubhai Raisangbhai Padhiyar case Section 302, Section 364 and Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Section 4 and Section 6 of POCSO played a significant role -

• Section 302 IPC: Punishment for Murder (Section 103 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita 2023)

• Section 364 IPC: Kidnapping or abducting in order to murder (Section 140 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita 2023)

• Section 377 IPC: Unnatural offences

• Section 4 POCSO: Punishment for penetrative sexual assault

• Section 6 POCSO: Punishment for aggravated penetrative sexual assault

Judgment and Impact of Sambhubhai Raisangbhai Padhiyar vs State of Gujarat (2024)

The 3-Judge Bench of the Supreme Court comprising Justice B. R Gavai, Justice Aravind Kumar and Justice K.V Viswanathan upheld the conviction of the accused for the sexual assault and murder of a 4-year-old child. However, the Court after considering factors such as his mental health, social background and behavior in prison decided to reduce his sentence from the death penalty to 25 years of imprisonment without remission.

The Court referred to several reports such as ‘Mitigation Investigation Report’ from Project 39A and assessments from mental health professionals which indicated that the accused suffered from moderate-intensity psychotic features and intellectual disability. 

The Court observed that the possibility of reformation had not been completely ruled out; the death penalty was not justified in the present case. The Court also noted that the socio-economic condition of the accused was taken into account when deciding on the fine which was subsequently set aside.

The decision in the case of Sambhubhai Raisangbhai Radhiyar vs State of Gujarat (2024) highlighted that the imposition of a sentence should not follow a rigid formula and should be based on the individual circumstances of the case.

Conclusion

In Sambhubhai Raisangbhai Padhiyar vs State of Gujarat (2024) the Supreme Court upheld the conviction of the accused for the sexual assault and murder of a 4-year-old child. The Court reduced his sentence from the death penalty to 25 years of imprisonment without remission. The fine imposed by the lower courts was also set aside due to the socio-economic background of the accused.