Previous 10 / 10 Next

penalty awarded under Sections 376A and 302 IPC is commuted to rigorous imprisonment for 20 years. 20. The appeals are allowed to the extent indicated above. 21. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of. ..............................J. (B.R. GAVAI) .............................................J (PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA) ................................J. (K.V. VISWANATHAN) NEW DELHI; SEPTEMBER 12, 2024. 10

Select target paragraph3

● ● ●

Rabbu @ Sarvesh

CASE BRIEF

Jurisdiction

India

Nationalities

Indian

Case Title: Rabbu @ Sarvesh v. State of Madhya Pradesh

Age at Offence: 22

Age Group at Offence: Adult (18 to 59)

Gender: Male

Religious Group at Offence: Hindu

Vulnerable/ Marginalised Group

Socio-economic Status

Jurisdiction - Geolocation

Latitude: 20.5937

Longitude: 78.9629

Jurisdiction - Geolocation (linked CASE BRIEF): India

Contributing TRP Partner

The Square Circle Clinic (India)

Latest Country's Death Penalty Status

Retentionist

Case Current Status: Closed: Commuted

Year when sentenced to Death Row: 2010s: 2018

Method of Execution: Hanging

Rights Allegedly Violated

Fair Trial and Due Process: Excessive and disproportionate punishment

Nature of Offences for Death Penalty

Sexual Violence: Rape
Murder: Single Victim

Expert Evidence

Forensic/Medical evidence: Autopsy/Post mortem
Forensic/Medical evidence: DNA/Serology/Biology

Case Background (300 words max): The case against the accused was that the accused (along with a juvenile co-accused) showed pornography to a minor girl, committed rape against on her, poured kerosene oil on her and set her on fire, leading to death.

The main circumstances against the accused are: dying declaration, and medical evidence (postmortem report and DNA report).

The trial court convicted and imposed the death sentence to the accused on 20.08.2018, which was then confirmed by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur on 17.01.2019. On appeal, the Supreme Court confirmed the conviction but commuted the death penalty to fixed rigorous imprisonment without remission for a period of 20 years, on 12.09.2024.

Defence Arguments (200 words max.)

Conviction:

Dying declarations: Prosecution’s case rested on three dying declarations, which were inconsistent and as time progressed, there were improvements made to them. Truthfulness of the declarations was doubtful and the conviction could not the based on them.
DNA report: The report pointed to the presence of a third person, and in such an eventuality, the order of conviction could not be sustained.

Sentence

Mitigating factors: The case at hand did not fall in the ‘rarest of the rare’ category, and the trial judge did not consider the balance between aggravating and mitigating circumstances. The appellant had lost his mother and brother at a young age, his socio-economic status was poor, he was of a young age at the time of commission of crime, and his conduct in prison was good.
Procedure: The trial judge gave the order convicting the appellant and imposing death penalty simultaneously.

Judgement with Headnotes (200 words max)

Dying declaration: The declaration was reliable and trustworthy, clearly implicating the accused. Futher, a medical officer had given an endorsement before the declaration, regarding the fit mental status of the deceased to issue the same. The written declaration was corroborated by oral dying declaration. There were no material contradictions in the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses regarding the declarations.
Mitigating factors: The court took into consideration that the accused had been through traumatic events (death of mother and brother), was young at the age of crime, had maintained strong family relations while incarcerated, came from a lower socio-economic strata, was not a hardened criminal, had good conduct while in prison, and the possibility of reform could not be excluded.

Legal Representation Received

Second Appeal: Pro bono
Pre-trial: Unknown
Trial: Unknown
Appeal: Unknown

Legislation Related to the Offence(s): Sections 450, 376(2)(i), 376D, 376A and 302 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Section 5(g)/6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offenses Act, 2012

Judicial Precedents: Swamy Shraddananda (2) alias Murali Manohar Mishra v. State of Karnataka4; Shankar Kisanrao Khade v. State of Maharasthra; Gandi Doddabasappa alias Gandhi Basavaraj v. State of Karnataka; Prakash Dhawal Khairnar (Patil) v. State of Maharashtra; Mohinder Singh v. State of Punjab; Madan v. State of Uttar Pradesh; Navas @ Mulanavas v. State of Kerala