New Delhi, Sep 24 (IANS) The Supreme Court on Thursday upheld the conviction of a man for repeatedly raping his six-year-old stepdaughter and throttling her to death, but commuted his death sentence to imprisonment for the remainder of his natural life without remission.  A bench of Justices Vikram Nath, Sandeep Mehta and Vijay Bishnoi held that the prosecution had established the offences under Sections 302, 376(2)(f), 376(2)(n), 376AB and 201 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), besides Sections 5 and 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, beyond reasonable doubt.The Justice Vikram Nath-led Bench said that although the crime was of "the utmost gravity" and involved the sustained sexual violation of a child by her guardian and her killing to conceal the offence, the mitigating circumstances and the possibility of reformation meant that the death sentence could not be sustained.

“We are of the view that this is not a case in which the sentence of death ought to be sustained,” the Supreme Court said.It added that "the intermediate sentence of imprisonment for the remainder of his natural life, without remission, is available and is adequate to answer the gravity of the crime". The apex court held that an ordinary life sentence carrying the prospect of remission after 14 years would be inadequate in the facts of the case."The gravity of the crime, and in particular the sustained sexual violation of a child by her guardian and her killing to conceal that violation, is such that a sentence of imprisonment for life carrying the ordinary prospect of remission after fourteen years would be wholly inadequate to the ends of justice," the judgment said.

The top court commuted the death sentence imposed on the appellant under Sections 302 and 376AB of the IPC to imprisonment for the remainder of his natural life, without remission.The other sentences and fines imposed for the remaining offences were affirmed, and all substantive sentences were directed to run concurrently.The case arose from the prosecution of Waris for allegedly subjecting his stepdaughter to repeated sexual assault inside the family home and subsequently throttling her to death. The mother of the victim, who was the wife of the appellant, was the solitary eyewitness to the events inside the house.The Supreme Court recorded that the victim was about six years old and that the offences were committed within the four walls of the matrimonial home. The post-mortem examination found that the child died of asphyxia due to throttling and also recorded a fresh tear at the fourchette with oozing of blood, which the autopsy surgeon opined was indicative of sexual assault.

The trial court had convicted Waris and sentenced him to death for the offences under Sections 376AB and 302 of the IPC. The Madhya Pradesh High Court subsequently affirmed the conviction and confirmed the death sentence, holding that the case fell within the category of the rarest of rare cases.During the proceedings before the Supreme Court, an issue arose concerning the manner in which the mother of the victim had been cross-examined at the trial. The legal aid counsel representing the appellant had been appointed on the same day on which the witness's evidence was recorded. The Supreme Court had therefore directed further cross-examination of the witness in 2025, observing that the original procedure had caused prejudice to the appellant in the matter of her cross-examination.

The further cross-examination was conducted on June 14, 2025, by counsel of the appellant's choice after the defence was provided the complete record in advance.The apex court bench subsequently held that the defect had been adequately remedied.It also relied upon the medical evidence and the mother's testimony in affirming the conviction. It recorded that the medical evidence independently established that the child's death was homicidal and caused by manual strangulation, while the injury recorded during the post-mortem examination was consistent with recent penetrative sexual assault.On the question of sentence, the Supreme Court observed that the appellant had spent about eight years in custody, including seven years under the shadow of the death sentence. It held that the possibility of his reformation had not been excluded by the prosecution and that the sentence of imprisonment for the whole of his remaining natural life, without remission, would meet the ends of justice.

The top court described the substituted sentence as "a sentence of the utmost severity, second only to the sentence of death" and said it would confine the appellant in prison for the whole of the remainder of his life without the prospect of release by remission."It is a sentence proportionate to the gravity of his crime, and it reflects the abhorrence with which the law regards what he did, while stopping short of the taking of his life in a case in which the possibility of his reformation has not been foreclosed,” the Justice Vikram Nath-led Bench said.

/ IANS