The Bombay High Court bench comprising of Justice B.R Gavai and Swapna Joshi confirmed the death penalty awarded to duo who were convicted for kidnapping and murdering of 8 year old boy. The court observed that the collective conscience of the Society demands that a message be penetrated that such an abhorrent act would not be tolerated by the Society and the persons indulging in the heinous act must be dealt with sternly.
In the instant case, the accused who were employed by father of an 8 year old boy, in order to take revenge against him, kidnapped the boy and killed him by smothering. Later they concealed his body beneath a bridge wherein normally nobody goes. They even demanded ransom from father, even after killing the boy.
The Court dismissed the accused appeal against conviction and confirming death sentence awarded by the Trial Court stated “Are these circumstances such where the Society would expect us to take a lenient view. Would the Society expect of us to show leniency in favour of the persons who had kidnapped the unsuspecting innocent child and nibbed his life in the bud before permitting it to flower. Would the Society expect the holders of judicial power centre to leave the persons with normal life imprisonment, who tortured the minor child and the entire family only in order to become rich overnight. It will not be out of place to mention that, after the incident had occurred, conscience of the Society in the entire region was shocked. There was an uproar in the entire region and a sort of fear psychosis in the Society. The mothers were afraid of sending their children to Schools. They were under an apprehension as to whether their children having gone to School would return home alive or not. The entire region witnessed agitations, processions and candle marches shocked by the gruelling event. Does the collective conscience of the Society expect of the judicial power centre to ignore all these aspects?”
The court upon being highlighted about good academic career of the accused, said that it would be an aggravating circumstance rather than being a mitigating circumstance. The Bench said “We could understand such a crime being committed by an illiterate person. But, when a person who is educated and aware of the ramifications of such crime commits such a crime in a broad day light with a meticulous planning and executes the same, in our view, it could aggravate the circumstance rather than mitigate the same.”
By : Spandana Nagesh